Fake-Fat Sunny

I had assumed that Edinger was a reasoable alternative given your interest in him, but I just saw apost from Mark VI that cited the following: - in his last 24 games in Chicago, he hit just 25 of 43 attempts. Last season, he converted just 15 of 24 kicks. His nine misses were a league high and the 62.5 percent conversion rate was the poorest of his career. I guess anyone who got cut in favir of Doug Brien isn't much to write home about. The situation remains the sameeverybody knows Lindell sucks but who do you want to make a case for who is better. Beyond folks making te claim that anyone is better than Lindell (a case not merited based on the performance of the Bills KO team and the fact it produced with Lindell kicking) there just seems to be no indication that anyone can demonstrate of who the kicker is they think we should get. Jake Ariens anyone?

It seems fairly obvious to me that races are divided by locations that is called segregation. The thing which some fine troubling (or interesting, or whatever) is that such segregation still seems to be the rule in our society. In theory: Income or asset levels are determined in a society which judges people based on character and talent by their inherent judgment and talent. In a land of equal opportunity all have the opportunity to gain income or assets based upon their merit. Location may well have some income bias associated with it as those who accumulate more assets or income would tend to live in the better locations. We also live in a society where because of modern communications and technology we can all share a common culture that would tend to make living in separate locations at least more transparent if not allow for easy movement and mixing between locations as the all share many aspects of the common culture. Yet, despite this general commitment to a merit based society, some sense that location would show a clear merit-based element and despite an unparalelled ease of movement between locations in modern society, what I find is an indication that we have not yet achieved the merit based society we (I) want (it is my fear of the failure of society to be merit based which I find troubling). I guess such a finding should not be surprising as the statistics do indicate that: Holding income constant one is twice as likely to be denied a loan by a bank if one is a person of color than part of the majority race. Again holding economics as constant as possible different races are steered by real estate representatives to housing in specific locations. Testing of medical prescriptions by doctors using pictures of patients and descriptions of their symptons and test results indicate that the treatments were prescribed with a gender and racial bias with white males tending to get more prescriptions of the more accurate and effective (and thus more expemsive so doctors tended to limit their use or prescription) mad men of color and women tending to get the less expensive treatment even with the same symptoms and medicals statistics as white males. A wide range of studies found that both race and income were the best predictors of whether a person lived in the same zipcode as a hazardous waste site, but that race was an even better predictor than income of this bias. What troubles me is that we still in many ways live in a society with significant racial barriers for mixing between people and that statisitcally separation still means inequality. I guess it simply takes time for us to become truly a merit-based society with the majority of our time as a nation being based upon the inequality of slavery and then Jim Crow laws. The ability to achieve asset and income accumulation shown in cases from Oprah Winfrey to Robert Johnson to Tiger Woods does provide some sense that the most talented of individuals in a particular area of expertise are finding the opportunity to do what they can do and profit from it, but to me the indication of division inherent in this yearbook study is a showing that these individuals and probably merit judgment is the exception rather than the rule. Broad statistical measures of asset accumulation

My argument is not that Lindell is that good (he ain't) its that I simply don't see a better alternative available right now or seen much posted besides the typical I hate Lindell and he sucks rants. Lindell missing a very makeable FG in the game against Jax sucked. Lindell missing a chip shot against Pitts really sucked. A sense that MM has little confidence in Lindell at 45+ is clear. The Bills should certainly get a kicker who handles the FG game, AND handles the KO game and even handles the onside kick game well. However, I have yet to see anyone seriously advocate that an available player can credibly do all three. There was not an unreasonable case made for Nugent because he is so good at long distance FGs and has a great leg that should give us some TBs until he gets enough experience as a pro and experience to learn the winds of the Ralph to directional kick as needed. However, drafting him where he was likely to be taken appeared to be a reach and reality made that true when the Jets spent a high draft pick for a kicker. By all means replace Lindell if there is a better choice, but you and others have yet to make a convincing case for any available player. You did argue for Edinger but he ain't available and the other suggestions you made seem marginal ones. What is the case for the coverage unit producing the same results with Payne. Novick or the other availble kickers that the Bills produced with Lindell. Lindell sucks at placekicking but a good case has not been made.

I'm late to this thread, but since I just happened to produce a lengthier top 10 films list for a cousin who asked I am able to merely copy my usual too lengthy post to this thread, She and I had lost touch for a number of years and it was interesting how I got to know a bit about her and also share things about myself by talking about the films we like. My list of top 10 (+) is: Bladerunner- One of my favorites films. I loved the Rutger Hauer speech at the end. Also interesting to me because it was directed by James Cameron and he his wife (at the time) and mother and my wife and I had dinner together one night about 4 years before his Titanic fame. I actually went back to the theatre and saw the Director's cut of this film which was most notable because it was absent some explanatory voiceover by Harrison Ford the studio forced him to add to explain this semi-complex film. I actually liked it better with the voiceover which gave some good philosophical insights . It's a Mad Mad etc World- runner up- This was a film I actually may have laughed harder at than Airplane the first time I saw it (I think I laughed so hard I cried actually) but it ended up as a runner-up for me because my first viewing was as a kid and when I later saw it as an adult it did not wear as well with me as Airplane or other films. Life of Brian- runner up- I also laughed a lot at this one but I think it might have been the odd company I saw it with (two college buddies who rarely interacted with each other but only through me). At one point we all laughed so hard we literally fell out of our seats and when we finally came up we had switched seats. It is a runner up because I think there are actually funnier and wittier Monty Python works but the grouping made this one a special film for me. The Great Escape- This is the beginning of a series of WWII films which I can watch time and time again. It interested me to think of what they all have in common which is WWII and they are all multiple big star ensemble vehicles. Kelly's Heroes- A fake story rather than a historical rendition like the other two, but the same notable ensemble cast. I particularly liked the character freedom that this scripted piece gave them since some of the characters are so over the top they are a real hoot, but the tragedy of death and war are constant companions with the laughs so these films are very full for me. The Longest Day- Another WWII ensemble and the scope of this one is so large and there are so many storylines on D-Day this film is very full. The humor is all the ironies of war. I am curious what the military mind makes of war films. Duel- There was some discussion on our part whether the list should include made for TV movies. I insisted they were films so this was legit. A lot of this for me comes from the movie Duel which really held me on the end of my seat. Interestingly you never see the villain in this film except for his cowboy boots at one point. The semi he drives which duels on western backroads with salesman Dennis Weaver in his early 70s Pontiac sedan is really a force of nature and it was a good choice to never show the driver. Das Boat- I saw this during a time period where movie theatres were headed toward the cineplex multiple screen model amid urban theatres which not yet figured out how to parrot the suburban multiple screen new builds were shoe-horning in postage size screens in subdivided urban theatres. These small screens were fairly annoying for getting the big screen experience which makes movies better than TV, but I found it actually an effective way to share the claustrophobia of men on a submarine getting shelled. This is one of a couple of films I saw and enjoyed in their original language with subtitles. The Woman Next Door- Another subtitled film which given it was in French and about a torrid affair was great. I saw this one with a woman who I always referred to as the goddess since I found her to be one of the most continental bombshell women I've known. It was interesting for me because I never seriously considered as relationship material in any way as I think with her beauty, athleticism (number 3 on the PR women's squash team), and intellect (a Phi Beta Kappa comp lit major) and I think she could sense this and I hung with her for her company. It amused me that he boyfriend just couldn't seem to get it why she and I would do things together she wouldn't opt to with him. I think it was because she liked him for one world and presentation which did not involve the slumming but also esoteric adventures she and I would do. She and I saw this film together in NYC and I think it embodied two people attracted to each other even though they should not have acted on it all as the results were ultimately fatal. She and I never acted upon any attraction but perhaps this was for the best. The Razor's Edge (old version)- The version starring Gene Tierney is far superior to the modern version starring Bill Murray. I liked it so much it got me to get the original book by Somerset Maugham and I would say this was one of the few films I actually enjoyed more than the book, GroundHog Day- A Bill Murray film does make the list. Its rare for me to see something I find totally different from the norm and this film which repeats the same day over and over again with different occurrences to advance the plot and his growth as a person intrigued. One of the things however which made this one special for me though was my wife and I were on a weeks vacation in Toronto and I had already seen the entire film which was on Pay-Per-View repetitively in the hotel. They used to promote movies back then by letting you watch two minutes free and then it would scramble. I found I could turn it on every couple of hours and see two minuses of the movie when the sports or whatever I was watching amidst or Toronto excursions was on. The wife was padding around the suite we were in and would look to see what I was watching and about the 4th or 5th time she saw me seemingly watching the exact same scene and wondered what the heck I was doing and explained that the movie itself probably had little more than ten scenes they were just done repetitively indifferent ways. An interesting film to me.

Actually what seems thin here is that folks don's take any note of the fact that separation by race in the society this school operates within is such that there is but one person who is a "Black Girl" in this school. Anyone who find racial division in this society troubling should find this troubling. Anyone who believes in fairness and agrees that separation in schools in inherently unequal as our Supreme Court does should find this troubling. The fact that the girl was identified this way does not appear malicious and I would think is not a real problem.. The fact that she could be identfied as the sole person meeting this description though says a lot about society.

By all means try him out because Lindell is not satisfactory at the long FG game. However, kickers are a weird breed, kickoffs in RWS are a task where knowing/feeling the game conditions because of experience is key. The Bills coverage unit produced great results last year. Luck had some to do with it. but having a consistent predictable KO guy is almost certainly part of this result also. I doubt Hall would want to come here without a contractual commitment I would likely not want to give him unless there was some really good statistical indication that he could do the entire job (long PK, kickoffs, onside kicks). I hope folks provide some useful insight on why they think Hall can do those jobs rather than the usaul amusing but useless diatribes that Lindell sucks. I know Lindell sucks now tell me something i don't know like why it is reasonable to think Hall is the man to do the job.

Thanks for the detailed stats. I find them helpful. However, it is a good example of the old quote that there are three types of untruths in the world, lies, dman lies and statistics. I'm a stat hound from way back, but my interest in statistics has educated me that they are a powerful INDICATOR of truth, but it is a real misuse of stats to claim they CONCLUDE anything. I think the bottomline here is that folks have to be disciplined enough to realize that the coverage game is a team game. Its either-or in terms of finding importance in tackling and kicking, but the two need to work well together to produce the result we seek. I do not care much about kick distance if long kicks result in an outcome with long returns or TDs. My goal for the team is short returns by the opponent and as few TDs given up as possible. I do not care if my kicker statistically only kicks it to the opponent's 19 if he kicks it high enough and exactly where the tacklers expect him to kick it if they can tackle the return guy for no game. A kicker who could only reach the opponets 19 for no gain is much better in my book than a kicker who can boot it into the opposing endzone repetitively but the team gives us long returns and TDs. if one insists on looking for a stat that shows effectiveness of kickoffs, then look not much further than opposing TDs and long returns. I have not looked it up and would be pleased if someone did so, but my recollection of last season was that the Bills gave up no KO returns for TDs andf scant few long returns (40+ yds). Did Lindell have much to do with this? It's not provable but that is why the game is a game and not straight-forward. I find it hard to believe from my years of viewing the game that the return coverage game works well at all unless: 1. The kicker puts the ball where the tacklers expect and in the amount of time they have practiced. Tacklers must get down the field and into position like their hair is on fire. They must do this while avoiding opponents who are trying to kill them. The idea that they are going to do this and also figure out where and how long the kick went is not going to happen. 2. Directional kicks take heavily into account the return guy, his skills and plans. Teams had trouble doing this with Dante Hall of KC a few years back and the result was multiple early TDs by him until teams got enough film on him to figure him out. 3. The winds of RWS make this task particularly difficult and there really is little substitute from playing in RWS alot, living in WNY and practicing here as much as possible. I have seen chip shot FGs at RWS go straight for 3 and get dead stopped by a sudden wind and blown down. Folks seem far to willing to devote a lot of responsibility to a rookie who never played here before and to discard a fellow whose coverage unit has produced great results. Lindell's miss against Pitts was so horrbile and TD overspent on him trying to reverse his horrible record finding a permanent kicker that I am very willing to consider replacing him. However, folks seem to me far too quick to discard him when their is little evidence to indicate that their proposed replacements can do the job or will not mean too high of a cost for us to take the risk.

The talk I hear is of Brown as the #1 right now with Wicky pegged as the #2. This makes semi-sense for developing Brown (it assumes that he will hit the ground at a level of Tomlinson immdiate readiness to step in which is possible, but a lot and if he is a normal first year player the Fins would be asking too much of him iniitally). It is essential that the Fins have Wicky as a $2 at most IF he comes back because he will not be available at all the first 4 games and even when he comes back it will a situation where he has not played in over a year and he would have worked out enough to put on 20+ lbs in several months. This can be done, but to do so means drastic commitment to working out that the drug-using Wickey has not shown he is willing to do and he runs the same risk that MW experienced last year that he worked so hard to get back into shape after his meltdown last pre-season he initially suffered injury from the workout. In essence, even if things are getting better with the Fins dealings with Wickey, being better than retiring and leaving them in total disarray is not saying very much. I suspect Wickey will come back because he has $8 million reasons to do sp, but his heart will not be in it. It is similar to the situation the Bills are in with Henry. The Bills are maintaining a position where they say Henry would be welcomed back as the #2 for WM. The difference is that TH has mismanaged the money he made to date, and does not have the $8 million bonus of Wickey's second contract or the initial bonus of Wickey's initial contract in his pocket. If Wickey plays it hard and fast and merely shows up but does not play as well as he can, Miami still will have a huge uphill battle to get any money back. Possession is 9/10s of the law and Wickey has the money. If TH plays it hard and fast and shows up but does not play as well as he can, he basically destroys his ability to sign a big contract even if he is an FA (two consecutive non-productive years, getting a rep for not watching his teammates backs among players, setting up the Bills braintrust to badmouth him about injury if they choose). Even worse, he not only does not have the money in pocket (if he only shows up for and is paid for 6 or so games) but he runs the risk of the Bills lawyers pushing to keep him the Bills property by fighting against him getting enough qualifying time and he is completely hosed. It probably will not come to that as it looks like injury will force the Titans to give TD close to what he wants and Philly is another possibility and this is even before the injuries of pre-season begin. However, TH would likely have little choice but to play, play hard, and take advantage of any injury that hit WM if it came to that.

The market seems to view Shelton and Jennings as comparable talents IF (and this is a big IF) Shelton is healthy. Jennings as at that level and on the way up and Shelton is at roughly the same level and on his way down (if not out due to his ankle). Jennings is a bet by SF that he is going to break out, but this is a bet that has not been realized to date because Jennings has been unable to start all 16 in his four year career. Add onto the two games he missed starts last year due to nicks a couple of other games that he was unable to finish due to nicks and JJ is good but questionable. Shelton was overrated by AZ with the big FA contract they gave him, but there are some positive aspects to his past game which should not be ignored completely (strong arms and if he gets ahold of you and locks up you are done, played through nicks starting all 16 twice and earning the nickname the "Last Man Standing" as he was the only player in an injured Cards team to play) just as much as his negatives (not very athletic and troubled by the speed rushers that often occupy the LDE slot). My sense is that these two players are equivalent for us in that JMac and the crew seemed to have made the decision that neither player is the answer for the Bills at LT. I think SF overpayed bigtime for Jennings. Nicks do not bother me as a disqualifier outright. However, Jennings has not only suffered from a continuing series of nicks that cost him time, but he has had a series of different maladies which make me wonder whether he might (MIGHT) be injury prone. His play has been good (when he can answer the call) but not so good and dominating that he is work the risk of top 10 OL cap hit money. I wish him luck and hope I am wrong. The Bills seeming Shelton decision is a disappointment for me, but not because i am a big Shelton backer but because I am a big Bills backer. We need an answer at LT and I hope but am not confident that Gandy is that answer. I am not confident that Peters can be trusted to guard JPs backside. I think Teague can do it, but the disruption in chemistry moving Teague and questions it raised regarding Tucker goinf full tike or the young Preston stepping up are huge. Shelton has real failings, but these failings are ones the Bills may well address (witth a huge blindside risk) due to JPs mobility and pocket awareness) and his positives have great upsides for the Bills (if he is the blocker for the run he has been it bodes well for an O which will run WM and then run him again). Its too bad from my perspective that he seems to be done as a player, but i trust in JMac enough to accept this judgment (WWJMacD). However, Jennings and Shelton seem fairly equivalent to me,

I also disagree that the resigning of Matthews is much of a vote of no confidence in Thompson. I am both pretty confident that the Matthews signing will only have him be a Bill for 2005 and that Thompson is not ready for the NFL in 2005 and would not even be our disaster QB this year. Thompson has a shot at making the Bills PS and this is not impacted one iota by the signing of Matthews.

I am also amused/horrified at the cut and dried simplistic way folks seem to want to see the Bills kicker issue handled. I agree that Lindell's miss on a chipshot FG he should have made last year against Pitts simply validated a sense that the Bills could profit a lot from having someone even adequate as an FG threat. It emphasized that mostly we were probably lucky that by pure chance we have not needed him to kick a gamewinning FG during crunchtime the last two years. The fact that MM seems to have lost any confidence in him over 45 yards is simply not NFL acceptable performance for a kicker. This being said, it is also rediculous that most fans seem to be so dazed by his placekicking failings that they seem to refuse to understand the fact that he has done extraordinarily well as a kickoff performer. Like it or not, a kicker MIGHT be called upon any week to win or lose a game for you with a last minute kick. However, he DEFINITELY WILL be called upon each and every week to kickoff for your team and those kickoffs will do a lot to determine the fate of your team that week. Like it or not, Lindell was simply flawless in the kickoff game last year. Placekicking is high profile and success/failure is measured easily in you getting 3 points or not. However, simply because kickoff skill is more difficult to measure that does not mean that it is easy (this is particularly true in the dicey variable all-important winds at RWS. Tackling plays a lead role in the quality of the kickoff game. However, in order to cover kicks well it is critical that a kicker kicks the ball when, where and with the hangtime the tacklers expect every time in order for them to be in the right position to make the tackle. The Bills has no (by this I mean nada, zero, none, bupkus) TDs on KOs against them or even long returns last year. Luck was a major part of this as the difficult to predict RWS wins are quite likely to have the KO go off plan at least a couple of times per season. However, the fact is that the Bills were essentially flawless in this part of their game last year and Lindell deserves a big part of the credit (with tackling, luck, etc) for this achievement. Just because Lindell was great on KOs (an equally if not more important though less vexing part of his job as placekicking) does not mean he is also great at placekicking. In fact on the contrary. However, just because he did not produce placekicking does not nullify the fact he was incredibly valuable in the kickoff game. Am i satisfied with Lindell as our kicker? No! Am I willing to force myself to be comfortable with him as our kicker? Yes, unless there is a better alternative. I see none so far. The new kicker needs to excel at not only the placekicking game but also the kickoff game. Doug O'Brien has not even excelled at placekicking having missd a variety of PAT and other chipshots. the fact folks were interested in him speaks only to their level of desperation and not him being a better alternative than Lindell. Fair-haired rookies like Nugent or Payne are interesting but essentially unproven at mastering the pro kickoff game. Nugent interested me but mostly because I put such low value on draft picks that his long PK ability intrigued me enough that I endorsed taking what I see as taking a flyer on him in the 2nd round. However, we are probably better off that he was gone. We will see how Parrish does. Lindell should get competition and if he is beaten out fine. However, his improvement last year statistically from his horrendous production in 2003 gives us more hope than taking a flyer on some unproven replacement. His hitting two 45+ FGs taken off the scoreboard by Bills TOs does not count in reality but does provide some hope as well. I have no problem with trying to make it work with Lindell unless something better comes along. Folks do not need to make the case that Lindell sucks as a placekicer. We know that. They need to make the case that their proposed new kicker will make the grade as a placekicker, kickoff guys, and onside kick artist. I see no one where there is a good case made about that player.

I think it may well be foolish to go low car, low fat, low everythings as you describr, but it also seems to be equally foolish to go high fat, hig carb, high everything. The all things in moderation approach seems to make far more sense than going the extreme way many health freaks go or the extreme way you are preaching.

As unfortunately seems to happen in war, one of the victim's is truth. The irony is here to me that the tragedy of the Tillman death was multiplied by his status as an NFL star. The NFL is about telling and selling stories of sports glory which may or may not be a true story about the reality of life of an NFL player. This story-telling seems to have extended into this important real world issue of giving an impression or telling the story of this NFL star making the ultimate sacrifice for his country. Like the NFL, the more important reality is actually, the more likely the truth it is to ultimately come out. By shaping and lying about reality in order to attempt to drive the piblic to a particular belief, the military brass has in fact sullied the Tillman sacrifice. Its hard for the average Joe or Josephine to stay focused on the reality of his great sacrifice for us. It must be unimaginably hard for his parents to stay focused and they seem to do as good a job as I can imagine. Certainly by letting an attempt to fight a war as efficiently as possible cloud the truth, the pain around Tillman's death has been muddied and extended.

Its hard to imagine anything tougher than a parent having to bury their kid. The parents do seem to be in a space where they feel honored by the choices of this former NFL player, but feel fairly used and abused by the choices of the military in how/when they told the truth to the family and public about his death. This former NFL star paid the ultimate price for you and I. Its a shame that the actions of military brass seem to have extended the time and way his family continues to pay that price. Tilllman's parents vent anger at Army FAMILY RESOLVED TO BEING IN DARK OVER SON'S DEATH By Josh White Washington Post Former NFL player Pat Tillman's San Jose family is lashing out against the Army, saying that the military's investigations into Tillman's friendly-fire death in Afghanistan last year were a sham and that Army efforts to cover up the truth have made it harder for them to deal with their loss. More than a year after their son was shot several times by his fellow Army Rangers on a craggy hillside near the Pakistani border, Tillman's mother and father said in interviews that they believe the military and the government created a heroic tale about how their son died to foster a patriotic response across the country. They say the Army's ``lies'' about what happened have made them suspicious, and they are certain they will never get the full story. ``Pat had high ideals about the country; that's why he did what he did,'' Mary Tillman said in her first lengthy interview since her son's death. ``The military let him down. The administration let him down. It was a sign of disrespect. The fact that he was the ultimate team player and he watched his own men kill him is absolutely heartbreaking and tragic. The fact that they lied about it afterward is disgusting.'' Tillman, a Leland High School graduate and a popular player for the Arizona Cardinals, gave up stardom in the National Football League after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to join the Army Rangers with his brother. After a tour in Iraq, their unit was sent to Afghanistan in spring 2004. Shortly after arriving in the mountains to fight, Tillman was killed in a barrage of gunfire from his own men, mistaken for the enemy. In separate interviews in San Jose and by telephone, Tillman's parents, who are divorced, spoke about their ordeal with the Army with simmering frustration and anger. A series of military investigations have offered differing accounts of Tillman's death. The most recent report revealed more deeply the confusion and disarray surrounding the mission he was on, and more clearly showed that the family had been kept in the dark about details of his death. The latest investigation, reported by the Washington Post earlier this month, showed that soldiers in Afghanistan knew almost immediately that they had killed Tillman by mistake in what they believed was a firefight with enemies on a tight canyon road. That information was slow to make it back to the United States, the report said, and Army officials here were unaware that his death April 22, 2004, was fratricide when they notified the family that Tillman had been shot. Over the next 10 days, however, top-ranking Army officials -- including the theater commander, Army Gen. John Abizaid -- were told of the reports that Tillman had been killed by his own men, the investigation said. The Army waited until a formal investigation was finished before telling the family -- which was weeks after the nationally televised memorial service in San Jose that honored Tillman on May 3, 2004. Patrick Tillman Sr., a San Jose lawyer, said he is furious about what he found in the volumes of witness statements and investigative documents the Army has given the family. He decried what he calls a ``botched homicide investigation'' and accuses high-ranking Army officers of presenting ``outright lies'' to the family and to the public. ``After it happened, all the people in positions of authority went out of their way to script this,'' Patrick Tillman said. ``They purposely interfered with the investigation. They covered it up. I think they thought they could control it, and they realized that their recruiting efforts were going to go to hell in a handbasket if the truth about his death got out. They blew up their poster boy.'' Army representatives maintain the Army has done everything it can to keep the family informed about the investigation, offering to answer relatives' questions and going back to them as investigators gathered more information. Army officials said Friday that the Army ``reaffirms its heartfelt sorrow to the Tillman family and all families who have lost loved ones during this war.'' Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, an Army spokesman, said the Army acts with compassion and heartfelt commitment when informing grieving families, often a painful duty. ``In the case of the death of Cpl. Patrick Tillman, the Army made mistakes in reporting the circumstances of his death to the family,'' Brooks said. ``For these, we apologize. We cannot undo those early mistakes.'' Brooks said the Army has ``actively and directly'' informed the Tillman family regarding investigations into his death and has dedicated a team of soldiers and civilians to answering the family's questions through phone calls and personal meetings while ensuring the family ``was as well informed as they could be.'' With each new version of events, Mary Tillman's mind swirls with new theories about what really happened and why. She questions how an elite Army unit could gun down its most recognizable member at such close range. She dwells on distances and boulders and piles of documents and the words of frenzied men. ``It makes you feel like you're losing your mind in a way,'' she said. ``You imagine things. When you don't know the truth, certain details can be blown out of proportion. The truth may be painful, but it's the truth. You start to contrive all these scenarios that could have taken place because they just kept lying. If you feel you're being lied to, you can never put it to rest.'' Patrick Tillman Sr. believes he will never get the truth, and he says he is resigned to that now. But he wants everyone in the chain of command to face discipline for ``dishonorable acts.'' ``Maybe lying's not a big deal anymore,'' he said. ``Pat's dead, and this isn't going to bring him back. But these guys should have been held up to scrutiny, right up the chain of command, and no one has.''

As long as we're talking about gender/physique based business ideas here, I figure this is a fine thread to toss in my own idea that I would love to see someone do, not because I have any interest in the "service" provided but it would amuse me to see it happened. I have been quite intrigued watching the controversy/success of the food chain known as Hooters. it's owl mascot and their hiring of bodacious babes. My alternative idea would be to open a chain of restaurants where the waiters would all be men who are paid a premium for their body-building and physiques. They would be Chippendales who can't dance. The animal featured on the neon signs would be the rooster. The name of the restaurant in a backhanded nod to pectoral muscles and the rooster would of course be called PECKERS! If this is done we could make tens!!!!!

I do not disagree with your assessment of Shelton being a turd as a player because I have not seen enough of his play to explain why someone who is paid to spend too much time on this stuff decided to spend a bunch on real dollars on him even though it is counter to your fan assessment. I have not seen enough of his play to make a judgement who is correct. In addition, even if he did play well enough before to merit the contract he got, he clearly is coming off of an ankle injury which diminished his play and I have not seen the X-rays or been privy to medical information which makes it reasonable for me to draw a conclusion or to support or oppose the conclusion you have drawn based on seeing his play or being privy to his medical condition that it makes you comfortable with drawing a conclusion. However I think there is enough available info to raise a couple of concerns about your conclusion that Shelton will not be a Bill. First, there has been a lot ofrumorand chatter about the Bill assessment of Shelton. However, a summary of those rumors pretty much amounts to not the Bills clearly assessing him to be a turd, but having mixed views about him (specifically the unsubstantiated rumor is that TD and the front office like him and that JMac and the line staff do not. They may be shining the world on in terms of either view, or it could be a reversal of these vies with JMac liking him and TD not. I do not know. If you have any specific links or sites to quotes I am sure I am not the only one who would love to see them. Second, the sad fact is that even if Shelton is a turd it does not necessarily mean he will not be a Bill and further that making this turd a Bill would not be the right thing to do. Folks seem to pretend or operate as as though the decision to take on a player or not is a simple decision of whether he is a good player or not. This is a big factor but simply wrong as a real description of intelligent decision making. The real question how does a player compare in quality of play and cap expenditure to the other options we have available at that spot. It matters far less how someone judges Shelton that how someone judges Gandy who is is the current holder of the starting LT job. Why are you such a big believe in Gandy? Mt sense is that Shekton may well be done due to injury and if the Bills docs so judge then by all means pass him by. However, from what I know of these two as players. I have doubts about Shelton I think we all have but I have even greater doubts about Gandy. Again why do you endorse Gandy as LT and if not then what is your answer. I am also high on Peters and aggree he is a phenomenal athlete, but I do not see us trusting JPs's blindside to him until he has a full year of tackle play in practice and growing bit parts in games to his credit. I think Teague is actually a far more likely candidate to handle the job than Gandy, Peters or Shelton, but I think tyhe disruptions this causes on the Ol as we then would have to depend on Tucker as our starting C or rev up rookie Prestong seems unlikely to me. I do not disagree that Shelton may well be a turd as a player, but i do think a turd may be the best we can do at LT right now.

This suggestion and other ideas I have heard (ex. setting up various irrevocable trust arrangements that escape estate taxes and laws, selling off shares of the team and adopting a Green Bay Packers like model of community ownership, turning the Buffalo Bills into a not-for-profit charitable corporation under the law dedicated to educating the public about competition and encouraging youth engagement in sports and thus escaping various estate laws). All of these and other options are certainly possible. One has to be a fool to lose assets today due to estate laws. It takes having a goal as to what you want to accomplish in terms of use of the money (many want to give every dollar they can to their kids, others like Warren Buffet want their future generations to learn to make it on their own and view giving them big dollars and allowing them to sit on their butts as a negative thing to do to your kids, some want to leave the world in at least as good a shape as the find it, whatever cause this is America and one gets to choose how you spend your money). However, there are other folks (as Joe Robbie of the Dolphins seemed to be) who do not want to confront the fact that ultimately we all will die and refuse to make goals for preserving their wealth in away that allows their designated others to make choices how to spend it (they will be dead and will not make choices). The whole death tax political thing only hits those who do not want to confront their own mortality and refuse to make plans. It cost dollars to have a trusts and estates lawyer do this. However, by definition, if there is enough money that there is a need to do this, there is enough money that this investment is small compared to the total wealth. From what I see RWS is holding his wishes pretty close to the vest in terms of what his goals are. This is quite reasonable it seems to be because thoese goals mau change so why give the public false information to work with. However, the good news is he seems pretty well aware of this dynamic and because the Bills are a publicly important entity, he has committed to doing things which will allow for meeting his goals and those goals do not seem counter to community interests. If they are then tough on us, but it should be in good shape.

The lengthy article you posted seems to support the notion that TD has done a good job so I'm not sure why it leads you to disagree. The article basically seems to say that the blackouts have short-term advantages for the teams in that it creates a scarcity for the commodity of seeing the games while it creates a long-term failure of gaining the benefit of advertising the product to future generations. As GM TD has overseen a process where the Bills have essentially gotten almost the full benefit the last couple of years of getting fans in the seats by selling out and also getting advertising to future generations by avoiding the blackout. Perhaps you were focusing on the point that I made that putting a winner on the field is the best thing TD can do for attendance with the example in the article of the Bills failing to sell out a larger Rich in the first televised game at the Rich where the team was good, put on a great show but was blacked out. My sense of putting a better team on the field comes from my experiences in the early 90s where the team routinely sold out in the SB years, but it became tougher to do as the team weakened in its play (f0r example, the Greatest Game Ever Played against Houston was not televised as few expected this team to get to the SB that year. The other big factor however was that the timeline was so short for the Bills to sellout this playoff homedate that with a team unlikely to win it all and without the usual pre-planned season ticket sell run-up it was a toughsell). At any rate the particular economics of the blackout are a sidepoint to the basic question of whether TD has done a good job as GM sellling the product. The sellouts the last few years from a team with 9-7. 6-10. 8-8, and 3-13 records would indicate yes he has done a good job.

This is an interesting piece for those who insisted that Shelton was a dog who could not play ball. If true, NFL experts (who often seem not to have enough expertise as their teams are not competitive) seem to disagree. This simply adds another wrinkle to this tale in terms of figuring out what the Bills are doing since if true and the Bills can upgrade at a position they have some biq questions about it appears that Shelton will cost more to be the answer than if we had traded to get him. However, in addition to the contract costs, we would have had to given up the resoures to be garnered (if any or much) from a trade of Henry so there are just tons of factors here.

For sure it was the fans who sacrificed their nickels to fill the stadium. However, TD did his part in making it possible for them to do this and gets credit for it getting done. Its taken the help of numberous parties from Business Backs the Bills to Ralohie donating a few leftover tickets to the armed forces or to kids in a couple of difficult to sale match-ups. Hiwever, the fact has to be acknowledged that TD has overseen as GM to virtual perpertual selling out of a difficult to sell out completely stadium in the WNY environmental climate with a large stadium to fill and an up and down team result. The best thing this team can do to sell tickets is to win games. Failing a gurantee of that in real life, TD has done the job needed and kudos to him because we benefit from it.

Folks think Shelton is a possibility because: 1. He was regarded as a quality LT such that the football wizards at AZ compensated him with a huge FA contract. Since obviously the folks in AT are not the best and the brightest regarding football this assessment could have been a mistake, but is not generally regarded as such a huge one because Shelton is the LT equivalent of Ryan Leaf in play. At worst he was far from the best but was not horrendous. 2. The Bills have such uncertainty at LT even a not-so-good LT is probably an upgrade: A. The even less accomplished than Shelton Gandy as the first choice (JMac must really see something to be improved in Gandy's game to elevate it above a level not sufficient for the Bears to see him as starting LT quality), B. It is unlikely Peters is ready to be trusted this year to guard JPs blindside (Peters may one day be a quality LT but I don't care how phenomenal an athlete he is if JMac pulls this off for THIS YEAR he is truly a miracle worker), C. Teague can probably do the job at LT as he was adequate though judged not deserving resigning as an LT FA by Denver and his game has probably improved with what he has learned as Bills center. However, even this possibility is not guaranteed and the disruption it causes by removing him at C means counting on Tucker for a full season or accelerating the progress and promotion of Preston. 3. Shelton does seem to have clear strengths (tremendous upper-body strength and if he locks up with a defender the rusher is done) but also clear weaknesses (he can be beaten in space against speed LDEs and may not be athletic enough. However, this combo of strengths and weaknesses actually plays well to a Bills scheme that plans to run most as Shelton would be a quality road grader for WM and JP's mobility strength means that the back-up for Shelton getting beat as may happen against the Jason Taylors will be for him to be smart enough to take the penalty and tackle a Taylor when he is beat or if he is horribly beaten to yell LOOK OUT to the fleet-footed JP. Ironically,if we get down to Teague as a fallback his rep is the reverse as he seems to have the athleticism to take on the speed rushers but not the power to be a lead blocking LT on the run. 4. Shelton has shown some good ability to deal with injuries in his career (he earned the nickname, "The Last Man Standing" in AZ when the whole OL went down due to serious injuries or they could not play through pain while Shelton pulled this off. However, the big deal with Shelton is that he suffered an ankle injury which happened in conjunction with AZ deciding to move him to RT and a lowering of his production. Shelton and Deniis Green also started to fight and it was over. If this happened because Shelton's ankle injury was the real deal and he is done even as the not-as-good as his pay LT then the Bills will easily pass on him. If on the other hand, the Bills docs judge the ankle injury to be reparable (as they correctly judged with WM) and the problems with his production were based in a bad relationship with Denny then he may well be a huge upgrade for the Bills. The real answer is that nobody really knows which of these factors is true. It will be a great thing for the Bills if they have judged the problems as to be personality issues between Denny and Shelton and the prescensce of Shelton's cousin on the Bills and other factors lead to a judgment that Shelton is a clear upgrade for us we can work with. However, a lot of things have to be true in particular ways to make this so and as time passes with no deal it becomes far more likely that we judge him to be done and are going to look elsewhere. However, the carving of a deal is not a straightforward activity and there are some market issues to read (Shelton may have some demand for him as folks are antsy about getting an LT-the Bills may still prefer a few other LTs likely to enter the market when cap cuts occur like Walker or Whitfield. My guess is that this will get done one way or the other by June 2nd or 3rd and that the Bills will have options (not good ones but better ones than they got right now) to choose from.

There are several reasonable possibililities: 1. The Bills docs examined Shelton and just as they made a call on WM that his knee injuries were clean and could be repaired, they might have judged Shelton's ankle injury as not likely offering much of a chance of repair. Thus no deal. 2. Its actually not a straightforward negotiation as a new Shelton contract no only involves agreement over amount from a baseline of his old Cards contract of $3 million/yr but the ability to give him a bonus, prorate the amount over the years of the contract, and end up with a relatively low cap hit this year but allow him to put more money in his pocket right now than $3 million. 3. There may actually be a couple of teams with an interest in Shelton services and it will take him a few days to assess interest. 4. The Bills feel like the LT position is set with possibilities of Gandy or Peters with Teague as an emergency possibiility )I doubt this) Certainly as time progresses it gets less likely, but I wouldn't write this one off til there is some authoritative public word from one of the principles that no discussions are forseen. Wait and see seems to be the answer.

The facts are the facts and definitely Reed flopped as a #2. I think the assessment question on TD is whether Reed doing a good enough job as #2 was a good enough bet to make that it justified letting PP walk as an FA. I'd say the answer to that question is yes that it was a good bet for a GM to make, but unfortunately not only did we lose that bet, but in the worse possible way because it coincided with the loss to injury of our #1 WR. The key issues justifying the risk were: 1. Were the acciomplishments of Reed in college reasonable enough to justify him being a #2 his seond year. YES, College perfornance does not gurantee a player will suceed in the pros right out the box (likely he will not even for most 1st rounders who eventually become good) or at any point as a pro. However, winning the Biletnikoff award as the best WR in college and showing good ability for RAC as a forner runner is about as much of a college recommendation as you are going to get so betting on this player to eventually merit a starting role is not unreasonable. 2. Did Reed look productive enough as a rookie to merit promotion to starting #2. YES. He got a chance to pick on LBs and low-ranked DBs as a rookie so his 30+ caatces and 500+ yards did not come against the best competition. However, this was very good productiom for a rookie receiver and made a jump to #2 a reasonable bet to make. 3. DId TD have a reasonable plan B for Reed if he could not do the job. My sense is the answer to this is yes, though since he ended up as a cut, while Shaw was clearly not much of a player to be the best WR on your team. He wa a reasonable guy to figure in as your #3 and one might make the demand on him to be our #2 if Reed faltered. What happened to the Bills was: 1. Moulds, the #1 went down. 2. Reed despite a reasonable rookie record simply sucked. 3. Shaw was reasonably productive as a slot receiver. but [rpved incapable of doing much as the #2 without a #1 threat becausewith the demise of Moulds and Reed he was exposed. While i do think it is the foolish GM not to have a plan B, TD did. Unfortunately his plan C did not work well either and we sucked at WR. However, i find it really picayune to claim this is some obvious major failing as so many reasonable plans fell through and to discount the benefit that came along with the other action of what did we get for PP strikes me as unreasonable. TD blew it big time hiring GW and was foolish to restructure Bledsoe after he sucked in 2003, but the WR problem did happen but i think is way down on the list for faulting TD.

In addition to attributing the error to a TD decision to over-rely on Shaw and Reed by TD one has to at least mention to be rational this over-reliance stemming in a significant way from Moulds' injury. I think one might blame TD for not having a good plan E for having a #1 WR because after the Moulds injury, we could have used PP since Reed did not repeat the level of growth he demonstrated moving from college to the pros moving from #3 to #1, Shaw was incapable of being even a #2 much lessthe best receiver on the team. Most GMs really do not hsve the ability, particularly within the constraints of the cap to deal with an injury, a tough FA choice, a Biletnikoff winner who did well as a rookie having problems as a 2nd year guy and having his slot guy be the lead receiver on the team. The Bills screwed up at WR in 2003, but i don't think it is correct to blame this all on TD for not taking the reasonable step in casr 3 to 4 things went wrong.

As far as evaluating TDs work on the WR position, i think it is far an dry different than being such a flat-out obvious mistake: 1. Few saw any WR need for the Bills at all in 2002 when Reed was picked and a clear DE need. However, i think TD showed clear farsightedness in regards to puttin us in a position to replace PP if necessary. Having the Biletnikoff winner as the best college drop to round 2 was a reasonable pick in terms of getting the best player available. It turned out to be an even more clever mover as Reed actually performed quite well his rookie year catching 30+ passes as a rookie and racking up over 500 yards as our #3 WR. 2. Having the not guaranteed by a longshot, but reasonable freedom to trade PP for a #1 who became McGahee really is brilliant. Our offense clearly suffered from not having the 2002 performance of PP in 2003 (actually the AT offense also suffered a lot from PP not repeating his performance). However, while Reeds droppsies (which were not a problem for him in 2002) was only part and actually not the biggest part of our WR implosion in 2003. It was the injury to Moulds and I do not think it is reasonable to blame TD for that.