Fake-Fat Sunny

The last 15 years really leaves out a number of Bills CBs like Butch Byrd or Bokker Edgerson who names are well respected in Bills history. I think Clements is pretty good, but I seill have AW in front of him as a player I woud prefer to have as my #1 CB because I think he was a better cover guy and his tackling ability actually influenced the game in a single-handed way. Clements certainly was the glitzier player virtually right from the start when he took apicl off of Peyton Manning and took it to the house. However, even in the modern day of last year its feast or famine with Clements. He was great taking down picks and continuing to take them to the house last year. He deserved his Pro Bowl nod as better CBs chosen got hurt and he demonstrated the ability to take a punt return to the house. However, his great production was bookended by him getting taken to the cleaners by Jimmy Smith when he unecessarily went for the INT leading to the loss against Jax and he left a ball on the carpet against Pittsburgh. AW had a clear failing in that he could not produce INTs, but the way he shut down Tony Gonzales in a game against KC and the way he took down Jax TE for losses in a game last year showed how one player can virtually dominate play for the CB position. Clements was great and a big part of me being comfortable with letting AW walk when FA called. However, the development of McGee, owning an old-had like Vincent and having some good current nickels and future prospects I am comfortable challenging them to step up like Thomas, Greer and even the new draftee makes me comfortable with Clements walking if so dictated by the salary cap (likely the cap will go up a huge amount with the TV contracts so we will be able to pay Clements far more than a person is worth and keep him a Bill). Clements will actually need to produce like he did last year to even securely be #4 on my list. I love Nate Odomers as a shutdown corner and as the man in big games and give me AW as my #2. I probably rank Clements ahead of Smith because he never produced INTs, but Clements faux pas against Jaxand Pitt still gall me so I want another year before I put him securely in my top 3.

The reaction on TSW interests me. I don't have kids so its hard to say what I would do (early on in my relationship with my wife of 15+ years one ofus mentioned (we are pretty sure it was me) that I fully expected to have kids one day because it would be a wonderful thing to share with the woman I loved, but left to my own devices I really had little desire to be a parent. My wife-to-be (though we had no idea at the time) said that she actually felt the same way. The conversation then turned to other important things like our latest class assignment or this weekend's party as this conversation had nothing to do with us as a pair. Fast forward 5 or so years and she asked me whether I remembered a conversation we had way back when about having kids. I said I sure do. She asked if I still felt the same way (now that it was clear that parenting conversations were about us). I said I sure felt the same way. Dhe said good and about three years later we got married). At any rate, the reactions of folks which seems virtually unanimous that taping the kids mouth shut was a fine thing to do I actually think back to my parents. If a teacher taped my mouth shut and kept me that way for virtually any lengthy time, I'm pretty sure one of my parents (probably my Mom) would have come down to the school when she heard about it and kicked the tar (or at least read the riot act if she thought she might get arrested) out of the teacher. The she would have went home and if she thought I had mouthed off or acted up and deserved it, kicked the snot out of me. One of the things I loved about my parents is that while they certainly would have been all for an adult hitting me to stop me from hurting another kid or from hurting myself, if any outsider (teachers and camp coumselors were certainly in loco parentis (in the place of parents) bu they definitely were not my parents. If a teacher or a counselor had the temerity to adminster force to me beyond what was necessary to protect another from me or to protect me from immediate harm. Mom would have fought like a lion in defense of her kid. My parents had no trouble with swatting me to correct an immediate issue or even administering planned corporal punishment to adminiater a big lesson (I plated hookey from school once and I got spanked with the belt once the one correction was all that was necessary). For the most part, I'm just happy as heck that none of you who seem to feel fimne about an outsider administering plannd or lengthy physical punishment were not my parents. I think that Mom had to lower the boom on me only once not because I was a good kid (a lot of my juvenile life without heavy interaction with the cops probably involved not getting caught) but because I knew that though she contenanced physical correction, I also knew she would go to wall for her kids and there was no question of it being OK for an outside party to adminster more than a corrective swat without my parents protecting me. My parents would and did administer longer than a quick episode of physical punishment or interaction with me be it a teacher or sexual pedophile. I mostly feel sorry for the kids of you parents who seem to feel fine about others having more than fleeting physical interaction with your kids.

I understand that the conventional wisdom is that BB snookered TD with the Bledsoe trade, however, i think that an examination of the facts reveals that the conventional wisdom at least does not tell the whole story and in fact is simply flat out wrong if it wants to give BB credit for winning two SBs thanks to TD trading a 1st for Bledsoe. Definitely BB made the correct choice in sticking with Brady as his QB and letting Bledsoe go. However, this is a different thing than giving credit for the two SB wins under Brady's guidance to TD for making this trade. Brady was the guy to keep and would have been kept regardless of whether NE got a 1st for Bledsoe as Brady was the obvious choice whether one got a 1st, a 2nd or simply cut Bledsoe. If one wants to deliver credit to TD for delivering NE the SB wins, one has to make the case that the 1st round draftee that NE got from Buffalo in exchange for DB was the cause of NE's SB wins. Ty Warren the player acquired for Bledsoe finally became a solid starter for NE on the DL in 2004, but no one would mistake TD as furnishing NE with a stud gamebreaker with this pick. Instead a fact-based assessment of this trade show NE getting raped in this exchange in 2002 rather than the Bills. It is simply a reality in terms of on the field production that we desperately needed a QB in 2002. The choices were the failed non-choice of keeping RJ in the job, relying on the proven back-up at best AVP as the starter, or getting one of the available QBs which was probably Chris Chandler or Rodney Peete. Even for those who knew Bledsoe was at best on the backside of his career, he was a very reasonable acquisition for the Bills to make in terms of upgrading the position and given that BB's negotiating price was 2 1st rounders in exchange for Bledsoe a 1st was not an extraordinary price in comparison to what BB was asking. In terms of on the field results, it is actually hard to see the Bills realistically doing any better than the Bledsoe on field performance in 2002, He set numerous single game and season records at QB in terms of on field production, he led a Kevin Killdrive O which proved effective until KG stupidly refused to vary his approach as teams got film on it and BB provided a roadmap on how to take advantage of Bledsoe. Even still the Bills produced the second best turnaround in record ever in the NFL moving from 3-13 to 8-8 and Bledsoe played a key role in this production. He not only complete 110 passes to Pro Bowler Moulds, called plays and handed off to Pro Bowler Travis Henry and completed 94 passes to Reed (which TD steered into tagging Price to get McGahee) but Bledsoe even was honored with a reserve Pro Bowl nod which I think he deserved with his play (if you think he sucked and did not deserve this then what AFC QB would you pick for the Pro Bowl instead?). All of this comes even before one calculates in the fan excitment and ticket sale excitement that made Bledsoe an excellent business pick-up for the Bills in addition to his very good on field performance in 2002, All of this comes even before you assess the impacts of this trade on NE. Quite frankly I think they were doomed in 2002 whether they traded Bledsoe or not as even if they cut him his cap hit would have accelerated and this was a major reason why this team won SBs in the 2001 and 2003 (and 04) seasons but these wins bookended NE even failing to make the playoffs in 2002. However, the facts are the facts and it was NR that got raped by the results of this deal in 2002 not the Bills. One can and should look further than this one year to accurately assess this deal. Bledsoe was so horrendous in 2003 and Ty Warren was acquired for Bledsoe (with NE actually giving up even a little more value to switch picks with the Bears and draft Warren) but did nothing that in total it is reasonable to view this deal as a wash (though in my view the Bills experienced such a turnaround that they then squandered that the Bills were probably still ahead when assessing this trade in a vacuum without considering GW being a disaster with or without Bledsoe and NE being an SB winner in 2003 with or without Warren). My sense is that the Bills should have cut Bledsoe after the 2003 season and comfortably could have considered TD making the deal a wash. The benefit of turning this team around on the field in 2002 (and at least at the ticket window in 2003) easily made this a wash for the Bills in comparison to having been able to draft the equivalent of a Ty Warren level player in 2003. One can make woulds/coulda/shoulda considerations that are based on where we might be if we had Ty Warren to fill in for Phat Pat. However, this theoretical discussion quickly lapses into unreality as we likely would have had to have used the #14 pick for a QB in 2003 (or an earlier pick as I doubt we would have gone 8-8 with Chris Chandler, Rodney Peete or AVP at QB in 2002). Trading for Bledsoe and his play at a critical time in 2002 was easily worth a future 1st round choice in my book and I do not think BB snookered TD at all. If you believe this I think you are ignoring the beneficial parts of Bledsoe's ultimately inadequate play for the Bills and you value Ty Warren far to highly.

Trade value obvious begins with an assessment of what a player MAY do for you and thus how good do you think he can be. However, though things start with this factor, the factor that determines the absolute trade va;ue for a player is simply supply and demand. Did the Fins trade a 3rd for Jordan because they judged his absolute talent level as being the equivalent of a 3rd round talent (whatever that means?) NO. The team made a judgment that given their extreme demand and need for an RB after Wickey up and left they gave up what they thought they had to give up based on what potential trade partners wanted for the supply of backs out there/ The Bills got a 1st rounder for Price because AT owner foolishly set the market price high for Price specifically by guranteeing to his customers and most important to Michael Vick that his team was going do what was necessary to get the best WR threat for Vick. TD unexpectedly tagged PP and had enough of a good relationship with PP that he got him to stick a cork in negative things he initially said when he was tagged and TD took Blank to the cleaners. TD has done a fantastic job with Henry in my book to date, 1, He fostered and allowed a situation where Henry and his agent did the work for him of assessing and finding market interest. This not only saved TD time, but also saced him from contacting folks hat in hand to make a deal and to allow potential trade partners to make the first offer. 2. He has consistently said he would love to have TH back. If he ragged on TH it would lower his trade value and he also creates the potential that he will walk away from any offer he considers insufficient. 3. I also really doubt that TH will be a Bill in 2005, but having an inability to see any scenario where this could happen merely means that the person doing the seeing is pretty short-sighted. In the end, TD has recognized that because TH is under contract and if in fact no team is interested in him, TH really has no choice but to play and play hard for the Bills as a back-up unless he wants to pull a Wickey Williams and go pout. Even the concept that Henry will attempt to play 6 games and qualify for FA would hurt his value so much that he would be pretty unlikely to get the big buck contract he wants after: A. A second straight unproductive year on the field. B. Have decided not to watch his teaammates back in being @2 for WM and blown off team leader Moulds wish that he honor his contract and come to camp. C. A team is going to sign a player who demonstrated he can beat his GM contractually. D. Sets the Bills up to lauch a whispering campaign about the seriousness of TH's past injuries which would greatly lower his ability to get the deal he wants. Sitting out likely results in him remaining Bills property anyway and destroys his value if he gets free. The prescence of 3 RBs judged high first round talents created a supply of RBs which undercut the ability of the Bills to trade him. However, as ex season begins, the Bills are one injury away or one potential RB showing he can produce away from suddenly there being a very good market for Henry. I think it is simply WRONG to insist that TH is such and such a quality of RB and that means he is worth a specific draft choice. The trade value of Henry changes not only from draft to draft (a 2nd round choice in 2004 is worth a lot more generally than a 2nd round choice in 2005) but within am inidividual draft. In the last draft when 3 RBs went in the top 10 picks his valie went up. However, as RB Arrington remained on the board his trade value went down and once AZ picked an RB it suddenly became a buyer's market and his trade value plummeted to a low round pick. The things which still work in favor of TD getting the value he wants for Henryare: 1. As a former Pro Bowl player who put up over 1300 yards rushing two seasons in a row, caught over 40 passes one season and has improved his fumbling issue, and most important can be medically examined by any potential partner, Henry meets the low threshold that he is seriously considered potemtial trade bait and supply and demand will determine ultimately trade value, 2. Cap wise he is far more attractive than the other forner Pro Bowl RBs available as James and Alexander are better RBs but would command salaries this year in the top 10 and few teams can do this. 3. The occurence of injury to a man visualized as starting RB for a team (ex. Fred Taylor) or non-peformance will be the biggest factors determinging demand for Henry. Saying he is a good or a bad RB is legit, but claiming he has some virtually immutable value reflected in a draft round is simply wrong.

I think the thing that is rationally difficult to argue with is that the Henry situation is not cut and dried one way or the other. It certainly does not strike me as rational to view Henry as the greatest RB on the planet or even a player who would draw a 1st round pick in trade value. However, it strikes me as only slightly more reasonable but still pretty irrational to say he has no trade value, should be cut immediately or to insist that there is no way TD will get the 2nd round value he has placed on him or at least a third round choice since I assume he was negotiating high by declaring he wanted a 2nd for him, I think that TH gaining over 1300 yards rushing 2 seasons in a row is no fluke and that the vast majority of NFL RBs have proven not be capable of getting this tyoe if rushing production. I think it was simply a fact that he was a hero for a season or so to most Bills fans as he played on through a painful injury and proved productive in gaining yards rushing despite the injury. I think that he has some bad drops as a receiver but when emploued as a receiver in 2002 he took in over 40 catches and this factual occurences is not overshadowed at all by the opinion of some that he has trouble catching the ball. He did have big problems with fumbling his second year and there is nothing in terms of the facts of his receiving that are anywhere near this actual "trouble" which he actually improved on. I think the assertion that he has blitz pick-up problems is overblown as well. He did (like most rookies including WM struggle with blitz pick-up his rookie year as he failure to do this resulted in a sack in the initial game of his initial season. However, like most players he improved on this with time and this is evidenced as it not being an issue raised much or at all in his 2nd and 3rd seasons and only reared its head as part of the thrown together list of indictments of Henry from some posters (many of which like the claims he is a hardened pedophike are simply not supported by the facts, if he slept with a minor because he is stupid enough to be fooled when a youngster says she is above age he is not necessarily a pedophile. If he seeks out minors and has sex with them he is a pedophile. I think there is no evidence that he slept with a minor because he is a pedophile. Henry is far from perfect as a player. However, like most commodities his trade value will be determined in the end by supply and demand, Given his contractual status and that of other former Pro Bowl RBs TD will command the supply side fo RBs. They key to getting good value for him is not his produdtion as a player, it is the extent to which demand is high enough because team's feel they need a former Pro Bolwer at RB and quite frankly demand will go through the roof for him if injury strikes teams badly. The idea that he is cut and dried great or cut and dried sucks simply seems to be irrational non-football thinking to me.

Yhr big difference between Henry and James/Alexander is contract size. James cap hit last year was $3.7 million. Alexander was not in the top 10 last year but I think he got tagged this year so up his cap hit goes. Henry has a cap hit of $1.25 million so not only is his value significantly hire if you are looking fir a former Pro Bowler, but some of these teams simply have no room for the Alex/Edger options so Henry isit if they judge his past yardage as indicative of his future output. I am really happy that TD has not turned out to be a girly-man and panicked as some have encouraged him to do and reward Henry by cutting him.

I just saw that the 2005 Darwin Award for evolutionary excellence for demonstrating that the fit survive and idiots not was a criminal who pulled the trigger on a gun as part of a robbery gone bad and the gun misfired. In a seemingly logic-based effort to diagnose the problem he looked down the barrel of the gun and pulled the trigger to gather information on what the problem was. Problem solved! The gun worked. Problem solved, the criminal died.

My rant has always been that not only was Tra Thomas available with the 1st they spent on RJ, but that Tim Dwight (WR and PR were needs at the time) was available with the 4th they spent on RJ. It cannot really be said the Bills would defintely have those two players who in retrospect were better choices (if reality were different by definition it would have been different and maybe someone would have traded up above the Bills to get Thomas if the Bills had the pick and the obvious need and maybe Dwight get taken in the 3rd rather than the 4th if they had the pick). However, even though a 1st and a 4th were actually the going rate at the time and not an overpayment for a QB, my real rant is that: 1. Butler totally panicked and fell into the typical over importance given to the QB position after he: A. Miscalculated (as RWS did with his handshake deal with Jimbo) by a year how much Kelly had left and thus waited a year too long to draft a QB to replace him. B. Overspent and assessed by spending a second rounder on the happy-footed Todd Collins C. Tried to develop Collins to quickly because Kelly was a goner. D. Overspent to get Billy Joe Hobert who then barfed as a player and was cut. Its no wonder he panicked and spent for RJ when the smarter thing to do was to get as many cutrate potential QBsas he could get and train/scheme one of them to be the Kelly replacement instead of looking for the next Jim Kelly. I suggested Steve DeBerg as a possibility after the 97 debacl season and lo and behold he actually did play an important role in getting AT to the SB the next year. Even better but not recognized by me or anybody except for AJ Smith Doug Flutie was available and led the Bills to the playoffs after a horrible season in 97. 2. The worse thing that Butler did was resign RJ to a guranteed contract when he turned out to be injury prone. Even worse he under the false pretense that Flutie would have a chance to compete on the field for the starting QB job he stupidly agreed to the guaranteed RJ deal AFTER he has agreed to rollover achieved Flutie bonuses into his base contract. The table was set for the QB controversy which savaged the Bills in the late 90s and early 2000s and in retrospect and even mostly beforehand even for an idiot like me this was totally avoidable.

The first thing is that the law varies from state to state. Just because one person had a particular experience does not mean that you will have the same experience. Not only is their variation from state to state in terms of the letter of the law and how it is applied, but there is even variation with a state or municipality in from judge to judge and for a particular judge as to whether he is felling plaintiff oriented or defense oriented that particular day (generally the courts and the system try to avoid these variations). In general, my understanding for my state is that small claims courts cases involve such relative peanuts compared to big cases that the emphasis is speed and reducing complexity rather than involved stories and explanations. I have been to small claims court once in Buffalo. You could see a number of cases where one of the parties had obviously spent a lot of time accumulating general data and preparing it for presentation and it certainly was related but did not address the specifics of the case and the judge was quite abrupt in moving things alomg and actually cutting off the plaintiff (the overly prepared one in this case) and trying to get to what he thought was the cental point of dispute. In Buffalo, small claims court can and does involve lawyers. They tend to be folks like the defendant in your case (businesses) that actually pay a retainer to a lawyer to handle the several small claims cases the business is involved in each year. The judges actually recognize and develop relationships with lawyers they see a number of times. Again, this does not gurantee the outcome of the case going in favor of the lawyer he knows, but the judge seemed to appreciate it when the lawyer he knew helped move the case along and did not drag out cases he would likely lose or conversely when the lawyer seemed to be sticking to a case or a particular point the judge seemed to give the close call the benefit of the doubt. Overall, there may be a couple of things which are worth doing from your perspective, but you will need to make the judgment whether there is enough money on the line to make it worth your time or it is a point of large enough principle for you to make a stink. 1. Go to small claims court in your town and spend a couple of hours- This expenditure will give you a real sense of how it goes and how things flow. It will let you know how much expertise seems to be required, how often lawyers may be involved (here it is rarely but it is not unusual at all), and how much judges emphasize speed or justice. A couple of hours may not be worth your time or the claim. On the other hand, when you come back simply knowing where things are and having a sense of the process will likely make that trip more efficient, faster amd more successful. The court really is an interesting place and process and going on this field trip with nothing on the line for you could be fun. 2. If you go to court, identify a lawyer who does small claims and talk to them or go spend a free session with a lawyer to present your case- Even though he will probably reject taking your small potatoes case (in fact you may get no further than a phone conversation) the lawyer will actually give you his sense of whether you have a good case or not, what a lawyer can do for you in this case and why they are not necessary, and to the extent you have a nice conversation and develop a friendship with the lawyer get some free advice on how to present your case. Any lawyer you talk to will be quite mechanistic and not want to spend a lot of time with you since time is money. However, mosty lawyers are people as well and if spending some time shooting the crap with you is fun for them because they get to feel important and appreciated sharing knowledge they might give you something you can use for free. 3. Call the consumer affairs reporter for a local TV station- Any lawyer you talk to will likely be quite mercenary and not want to spend a lot or any time on a case with no profit for them. However, a local consumer affairs TV reporter (I think Marie Banks is one here in Buffalo but I never watch the local news so who knows) has been to and is familar with small claims court. If your case is interesting and is about a local consumer taken advantage of by a company, she/he may be willing to talk to your about the potential of doing a report. This canm serve two advantages: 1. You might be able to get the reporters' objective perspective on the small claims court process and what works or doesn't work there. 2. If the reporter bites at all and you are interested, this may give you some leverage to force a settlement out of the rental company. For example, if you call the principle of the company and tell them you have talked with a local reporter and tell them that the unidentified reporter has asked you whether your opponent would agree to appear in a story but they did not want to ambush them, your opponent likely will not want the bad press of a story that even presents commerce with them as on one hand or the other. They might settle by giving you the $500 bucks because they might lose even more business if they end up with a 30 second anti-commercial on the local news about a bad consumer experience with them. The one thing i would add about my small claims experience was that we also won the case, but it was against an individual who boroowed money from us and did not pay it back (I think he used it for drugs). We won the case in a slam dunk when he did not even show up to contest it. However, the difficulty then was how do you collect your winnings. The court may give you a verdict, but the court does not help you collect. Just because you win DOES NOT mean that the sheriffs are going to show up at your neighbor's door to get your $500. There are mechanisms for doing this like collection agencies and what have you, but these services also cost money. Fortunately in our case, the opponent had also burned bridges and pissed off various folks who knew where his limited money was. His ex-wife was pissed at him and told us the bank he used and gave us his account number off a bounced check. The bank tellers were pissed at him because he whined at them all the time and probably illegally told us about a government disability check he was getting. Having won a small claims case and having the documentation of the court finding against him, we were able to put a lien of his disability payments and the disability folks who he yelled at whenever his check was a day late, were happy to enforce this lien against him and deduct our claim from his check and send us the money and send him a smaller check. We were simply lucky this drug addict was on disability so we could collect as many poor people are immune to law suits as they have no bank account and it is impossible to collect. In your case it is a small business so you are in luck that they can be found easily, but maybe not in luck that they may have a lawyer on retainer who handles these cases all the time. A more successful method for you maybe to show up on the stret in front of their business with a sandwich board sign which says ASK ME HOW XXXX RENTALS IS RIPPING ME OFF DOING BUSINESS WITH THEM. You likely will cost them more than $500 in business with this anti-advertising to their potential customers. They likely will call the cops to try to get you moved for blocking their entrance. However, if you have a sandwich board that asks people to ask you and you are not assaulting anyone or blocking their entrance they will have a tough time stopping you on a public throughfare (if they are in a mall, generally this is not the public commons and would be a tougher case). What you might do is spend an hour walking in front of their store with a blank sign. They will notice and ask what you are doing, in a meeting with the store principle let him know that the next several times you spend an hour walking around he sandwhich board will have the ASK ME MESSAGE. Give them a chance to settle. Now this is an FFS overly lengthy reply.

I disagree with you on two counts: 1. We are a quite a bit more than 1 player away from a comfortable rotation for a 4-3 defense. We not only are missing last year' starter at DT, but as you point out one cannot be comfortable with what we have in personnel to replace him: A. Adams (I assume the one solid tackle you mentioned) has really elevated his game the last two years. However, oddly this has come amidst his skills declining as they all do for us human beings as we get older, but numerous outside observers have noted how he has recommited himself to the game as he has gotten older and he takes far fewer plays off than he he has in the past.These little vactions did not matter so much when he was a younger lad as his incredibly quick fist step and the athleticism of youth made sure an opponent never took a play off because this just maybe 1 of the 3 plays Adams was working and he had the ability to recover if taken initially. He now throws fits when the coaches won't let him play amd makes efforts like a gamer. However, he is getting older, Phat Pat was apparently a buddy of SA whowas pivotal to getting him here and getting him to be responsible and he is gone, and last year's Pro Bowl berth may be an incentive that keeps Adams working hard, OR is may be a kudo which allows him to sit back because he achieved his comeback. We'll see but I'm not comfortable. B. Edwards (I assume the 1-D pass rusher you mentioned) strikes me as more than a 1-dimensional player. He struggled as a player initially failing to be activisted much of the season on a 3-13 Bills teams where many rookies earned a job starting because the team was so weak. Edwards could not even cut it against weak competition until an injury brought him into the line-up. However, the weak state of affairs on our DL earned him a starting job the next season not due to his pass rush skill (I think he totaled all of 2 sacks that year) but because of his run defense which was inadequate but more of his game. He was supplanted by Adams the next year and actually last year finally began to show some rushing ability (he probably equaled his career sack total in a reserve role last year). No one should be comfortable with Edwards until he shows that he has retained his run stuffing abillity as a player (he probably has as he has bulked up while still improving his rushing ability. However, the question is not so much whether he can play but can he sustain that level of play over the course of a season as a starter. C. I would disagree with the idea that Anderson is a complete unknown to only say he is a virtual on unknown. One cannot discount the college regard that made him a legit first day pick nad that he was active and played a few downs last year which is all one can reasonably expect behind a Pro Bowl player, Phat Pat amd Edwards who was recording nice high profile sacks. I'm well short of comfortable but think there is an unlikely but legit chance of him stepping in to start and it is quite likely he will contribute given his pedigree and last year's contribution. Add to this in terms of discomfort with the 4-3 is that we only have the min imum 3 DEs on this roster. I disagree with those who judged Denney as a failure, because in reality last year, we could not have gone with 3 DEs all season unless there actually wasn't a pretty close call in terms of talent among Kelsay/Denney and actually it speaks to Denney's good play that he showed the flexibility to back-up both RDE and LDE. In fact, Denney has shown athletic ability I find impressive in that he built beyond some intial inability to apply his body correctly which led to him being inactive a lot as a rookie to get a starter role his second year and show some athletic ability in short to medium zone pass coverage in the run blitz package. He also lined up a few times at tackle last season and played the swing role the Bills really need. I think we are easily a DE and a DT away from any comfort with the 4-3. 2. My seond point of disagreement is that though I think we have more questions to answer than you say, I think we have some good answers for those questions in total and even if we do not find all the answers, I think it is not as bleak an outcome as you fear. Though i am not comfortable with any of our individual answers for Phat Pat's replacement, I think one of the two possibilities should be able to team with Adams to equal the output in 04. There is even an outside chance for Bannan to recover his rookie output or even for Sape to step up. Add to this that even if the personnel is not where we want them to be, Gray has certainly shown in terms of application (his first year with LeBeau where he retained the DC play calling duty and demonsrated he mastered application of LeBeau's scheme) and strategy (last year where he used the bye week well and game after game made half time adjustments to shut down what worked for the opponent in the 1st half) that I am in fact comfortable that he will take even sub-standard players and put them in the best position to what they can do.

You are right that stats can be manipulated and I think that the case you make is probably a manipulation of the stats to make Ohat Pat's prescense seem more critical than it was. 58% of the snaps is 58% of the snaps. If the opposing O had 3 downs on each series (they didn't as the other team getting a 1st down means that first down occured more often, however, if the opponent tried to get a first in fourth down, this reduces the larger division of plays that first down gets. At any rate, with 3 downs equally divided, 66% of the D plays would have been 1st or second down. Phat Pat was certainly sitting on some 2nd down plays. To some extent if the opponents took a loss which turned second down into a passing down, maybe he came out for them. However, this would have to be demonstrated statisitically before anyone took it as gospel. I think the clear indication is here that Phat Pat was in on many running plays on 1st and 2nd down, clearly he was not always the go to guy on these downs. Williams will be important to replace, but he does strike me as eminently replacable as the strong indication is the Bills successfully replaced him a number of times last year.

The key here is that if one bases your perception of crime stats or the world based on what you see in the news, you will almost certainly have an inaccurate view. The newsmedia used to be a public service that happened to be a business, but today it is a business that happens to be a public service. The main rule I see is one that if ANYONE depends primarily upon a single source for your news (be it CNN, Fox, the NYT or the New York Post) you are going to get a significantly inaccurate view of the world.

How anyone can put the words "real" and Gilligan's Island in the same sentence is beyond me. Now that is comedy.

This weekend in WNY we went to the Bill Gray's restaurant which I believe just opened out on Main Street near Transit and had what thy claim is the best hamburger in the world. Though I wouldn't give them that title (the cheesburger's made by my Mom when I was a kid are still the best hamburgers in the world) the burger was pretty darn good. In fact, they were so good and the bite of the veggie burger my wife had was good enough that I went back out last night when a friend and I had previously planned to get together for dinner and I had the veggie burger as my main course accompanied by getting them to make me a half chocolate/half banana milkshake. It was a pretty good meal. This Bill Gray's is apparently the Buffalo area version of a burger place that started in Rochester, NY in the 30s. The burgers seem to be individually made (even the veggie burgers) from some wad o meat (or soy product in the veggie case) rather than be some uniform frozen thing. You order up the condiments of your choice (oinions, lettuce, ketchup etc) and best of all when you ask for pickles they ask whether you want sweet or dill pickles. The ice cream comes from a dairy called Abbbott's dairy and is prominently featured and seems to beyong the usual pre-fab production. It's a huge place with multiple TVs tuned to different things and had a sports bar feel as the couple we went with the first time was into the Kentucky Derby which we watched with close captioning reading the announcer's call (the couple is an older couple who then sang the praises of closed captioning which they use all the time as it is the only way for them to get all the dialog on their favorite show West Wing! They particularly like that CC also tells them what song is playing the background and also adds other details like describing sound effects. They accepted an assignment from me as our TV is too old to have CC to watch some pornography on HBO for scientific purposes and let me know how CC relates the sounds which are key to any televised sex act). At any rate, what's your favorite hamburger joint and why?

I'm not sure what the big problem is here (it is a problem but I think almost all parties see it as a little problem). She violated the rule that all knew about at least well enough in advance to take specific actions with clear possible outcomes. She is being held accountable for not following the rule in that she will not get a diploma from the HS. She accepts being held accountable in this way because it does not interfere with he larger goals of getting the education she wants and going to the college of her choice. She hopes/plans to meet the requirements later to get the important HS diploma but had other priorites for now. One can invest in the picayune argument if you want about the importance of gym, the unwillingness of her school to grant a waiver other schools grant, oe her choice (and her parents) of the relative importance of music classes, calculus, gym, etc but all these points are quite different from her once having made her choice (she did), an outcome being decided for her based on that choice, the outcome not stopping her from achieving her two prime goals (getting into the college of her choice and getting the education she wanted) and all parties moving on based on those choices. Sounds quite livable to me.

The supplemental draft makes sense as part of the TD MO because it is essentially the same as trading a future draft pick (06) with zero value this year for a player it is to be hoped adds value this year (the Bledsoe example where a 2003 pick produced a player who played well enough in 2002 to merit a 200 season Pro Bowl selection) or at least gets a year of valuable practice so he can contribute immediately in the draft year traded (the JP example where he did not contribute to the team in 04, but not only got a year of training which allowed TD/MM to be comfortable making him the starter, but also JP is seen by pundits as likely being the first QB selected this year IF he had stayed in. However, the two keys to a supplemental pick would then seem to be: 1. Will any player selected in the supplemental contribute this year? The answer appears to be no as possibilities like QB Linehart are probably a year away as most QBs are and the position is filled on the Bills roster and other folks such as USC DT Wright who may come out are almost certain not to be ready to compete this year even at a position of need like DT. 2. The potential quality of next year's draft is a big factor. Trading the 2005 1st fpr JP now appears to have been a brilliant move because the 2005 class was seen as weak not simply for QBs but at all positions. i do not know enough about the 2006 draft class, but given that 2005 was so weak I'd be surprised if we had two lousy classes in a row. If the 2006 class has some reasonable prospects, one would be reluctant to give up a pick in the supplemental for a player who has little to offer the 2005 team in terms of contribution.

My apologies as i read the original post as focusing on what the difference in deadspace was if he is cut before or after June 1st. There is a cap savings for the younger kicker because of lower base salary, but I read the Clumpy numbers as posted below. Ryan Lindell K $825,000 $825,000 $287,500 $200,000 $1,312,500 $232,500 $575,000 $487,500 The last two numbers are the difference in deadspace if he is cut before June 1st and after. There will be a cap savings of 200K and the significance of this number will be determined by how much space the Bills decide to keep this year in case of injuries. I think for GM assessment purposes, the deadspace number will be the one which will be looked at to judge TD's success or not. As far as a simple look at deadspace, there will be less than 100K difference if Lindell is cut early or late. Either way it will be an admission by TD that he screwed up signing Lindell and when he said good kickers are a dime-a-dozen. I hope he is football man enough to admit it when he has made an error, but I doubt he will do this when he has invested a lot of verbiage in this mistake and I doubt he will take this risk and placing his faith in the foot of a rookie like Rheem. We'll see.

I hear we are going to GB for a scrimmage this year. Assuming it will be a multi-year agreement with one year there followed by being here the next year I think this will be the "event" rather than the episode of a player transaction.

This certainly is silly on the HS's part. Isabel seems to be taking the right attitude regarding this which is to stay focused on her own goals and go for that. Graduating for the HS important, but what she really is about is her education and getting into the college of her choice and she seems to have done that. Just wait unfortunately, if she thinks the HS is silly just wait til she hits the private sector where unfortunately people are involved in decision-making there also and workers can fall victim to the lamest of decisions by bosses. 50% of businesses go out of business within 5 years and a lot of these are because their are el lamos running the business. If she finds folks who have the same goals she will be fine.

Certainly every business (and this means NFL teams) need to focus on luxury box and every other source of revenue and get all they can for their business. However, it strikes me that the big picture and the important picture here is that to the extent that these businesses focus only or even primarily on the principle of whether they should have to share sources of income or not, or to whether a particular item is part of the designated gross or not, they run the real risk of over-focusing on the details and hurting or killing the goose that lays the golden egg. I think the big picture here is that the big market teams may be focusing so much on the fight they are having with the small market teams, they are not going to leave enough time to reach agreement with the players before the current CBA forces them into a free-market in which the NFL will not produce a good product and may even not survive. The tough thing about this is that appears Ralph is right that the NFL cannot forge a deal with their potential partners the players until they get their own house in order. If it takes to long for the big market and small market teams to get their house in order there will not be sufficient time to forge a deal with the NFLPA. The scary thing is that there are clear signs like the Terrell Owens debacle and Rosenhaus being hired by a number of players who appear ready to hold out under contract that even the NFLPA is being hit by individualism rather than a more communal approach which seems to be the key to the NFL producing a better product and everybody making scads of money. I hope the NFL owners and the big market teams keep their eye on the prize of making lots of money rather than latching onto the distraction of principle that they deserve this particular thing as being designated gross or not.

I think most folks probably view this as not a big thing due to several real life things: 1. They recognize there may be a slight difference between the Exxon Valdez and the Greenpeace vessel in terms of the reason why folks are doing what they are doing. Both are certainly doing what they are doing for personal gain even if you want to take the most craven Greenpeace rationale (getting their name in the paper, feeling important and getting into someone's pants) and the most charitable Exxon worker rationale (earning some bacon to send there kid to school). People see a real world difference between those whose rationale is saving the world (even if they do it for personal gain) and those whose rationale is to help a corporation make a financial profit (even if they do it send their kid to college). Most normal people see a real world big difference between the Exxon Valdez and a Greenpeace boat. Maybe you don't. 2. They recognize there is a difference between a drunken Joe (whatever the name the Capt has) and a Greenpeace captain flaunting the rules as part of his efforts. Most normal people see a real world big difference between the Exxon Valdez and a Greenpeace boat. Maybe you don't. 3. They recognize there is a difference between an oil tanker carrying hundreds of thousands barrels of oil and a ship carrying 70,000 gallons. Certainly in principle they are both oil and the amount does not change the principle. However, in reality big is big and smaller is smaller and it does make a difference in whether this is a "big" thing or a smaller thing. Most normal people see a real world big difference between the Exxon Valdez and a Greenpeace boat. Maybe you don't. One could go on and on laying out why in reality this makes a difference for folks that the think is important. However, i doubt those who conveniently choose to view this simplisticly as a issue only of principle and choose to ignore the reality will pay any attention (beyond them choosing some new principles to apply if it serves their argument) will pay much attention to reality here.

The amusing thing will be if this sets a precedent for enforcement of the detail of the law against the big oil companies and large shippers that Greenpeace targets. It is one of the facts of life that often the case is easier to prove and the fines larger for failing to file the paperwork rather than ignoring the law. When I lived in NJ, we were actually approached by DC environmentalists to be the name plaintiffs in a nuisance common law suit against polluters who had admitted in their permit records that they were putting crap into the water in violation of the law. EPA simply did not have the resources to fine folks for polluting as the polluter would simply tie them up in court for years over the damage caused to public health from this pollution. However, they had simply admitted in permit filings that they did pollute because to fail to file the proper paperwork would have been a relatively open and shut case. They needed a local yokel to be the name plaintiff because we had clear standing under the law to file a suit. It took a couple of years as the polluter lawyers shucked and jived over legal issues such as standing, but eventually the polluters lost and agreed to settle the case with a donation to a local non-advocacy sream preservation group and to tighten valves and take other simple steps which reduced their pollution. (These types of suits were ultimately nipped in the bud by a Supreme Court finding which denied the lawyers on our side the ability to collect payment for their time as part of the damages. I think its too bad as the results ended up being the polluter stopped polluting, ironically many of them saved money in the long tun by stopping fugitive emissions of feedstocks they paid for, and the DC environmentalist collected nothing for their efforts, but did get a nice donation made to a local steam preservation group. Unfortunately when the cash incentive was taken a way from the trial lawyers to handled cases for the local yokels the cases stopped and polluters today keep right on polluting and simply reporting that they pollute). At any rate, there is the potential for this case to turn out the way that many have such as when McDonald's sued activists for product disparagement of their burgers in an attempt to force them to burn their dollars defending themselves. Ironically, the defendants had an airtight defense against a finding against them, they were poor and bankrupt. Who cares if Mikey D won as there was nothing to collect. Instead, they used the fact they were sued to lauch a fishing expedition in the discovery portion of their trial and got a ton of McDonald's documents where they admitted to a bunch of bad practices which dissed their own customers and destroyed the land. If the state applying the law aggressively against Greenpeace sets a precedent for applying the law aggressively against big polluters this will be a very good thing.

Its hard to say for sure but the real world measure is probably the question of how likely are the Bills to sellout games. When we sellout, this means that there is excess demand for tickets to play with so RWS should be able to comfortably make individual items more expensive. He will lose some folks on the margins as the prove unwilling in the real world to buy tickets or spend the hundreds necessary now to make this a family outing. However, these marginal losses would be replaced by folks who woulda bought tickets but missed out on the sellout now buying tickets. As the Bills have gone a couple of straight seasons racking up all but one game as a sellout this hints toward excess capacity which would allow for an increase in parking prices etc. However, there is the other side of the equation: 1. On a significant number of occaisions the sellouts were achieved at the last minute or by RWS choosing to give away the final few thousand tickets to the troops or to kids. Our perfect record of sellouts the year before and near perfect record last year would be noticeably worse without this intervention. The Bills are still a hand over fist moneymaker, but the excess capacity is questionable. 2. The Bills had to work like demons to create the sellouts we got. This wasn't a simple natural demand situation where the main work is simply counting your money. The Bills have needed to take steps to create demand by fostering a regional market and taking other steps that are cost centers (like advertising BBtix.com) which teams with waiting lists for season tickets do not have to do. If raising items prices like parking means that the Bills would simply have to spend the excess money gained on more advertising, arranging for more trains to come to WNY and taking it in the shorts every time we got a home night game (too far to travel in a regional market) then it would not make sense to do this. 3. The base on season tickets sales is made up of local businesses that use the tax advanatage of being able to deduct ticket purchses from their tax bill as a cost of doing business. When the businesses have no profit they are paying taxes upon, there is no subsidy. Overall, my sense is that the decision on how much the market will allow the Bills to charge for direct income like ticket prices or indirect income like parking, costs of hot dogs, etc. is actually determined more by larger factors than the marginal cost of ticket prices. If the team is doing well, tickets are easier to sell, their are lots of sellouts and a greater margin for raising additional costs. Further, if the larger economy is doing well (no US recession) then the subsidy provided through government taxation of business profits creates a lot of excess. If the overall economy is contracting there is not much excess. Overall, a ollar here and there is a marginal cost which will get lost in the bigger picture.

I care because since it appears that JP has healed well physically and suffered no long-term physical effects from the broekn bone (he was able to play with increasing effectiveness in mop-up duty last year, the break will be a simple test of his healing ability as some folks are poor healers and a break triggers a series of hurts and for others the point of the break is actually stronger than the rest of the bone). I care because it is beginning to look like the break and the enforced sit down time was one of the best things that could happen to JP and his development: 1. He was a brash young upstart who Vincent apparently hit because he took advantage of the practice tutu to get extra yards and make plays work in practice when he was flushed by the Bills D which could not finish him. In the real game, its a bad habit to get into because they will finish you. If suffering the bone break put the boy in his place I'm glad it happened. 2. The enforced absence was likely what JP needed. If he had been unhurt, he certainly would have used the time to don the jersey and be a sub. His time last early last season would have been spent carrying the clipboard on the sideline, yukking it up with his fellow athletes, rooting for his team but mostly fighting the frustration of watching Bledsoe butcher things while he waited and waited and waited. Instead I hope he used his enforced absence to go up to the booth, attach his ear to Sam Wyche's mouth and to learn the game from up top where you can better see the plays develop and compare what you saw exactly to the film. It was interesting to watch JP in mop-up duty last year because a good sign was watching him finish off plays and run fakes without the ball like a vet. I would not be surprised if he developed this old pro habit watching Bledsoe and opposing QBs (he certainly didn't learn it free-lancing and running for his life at Tulane. 3. He also had downtime we he could not play and excess energy that I hope was devoted to the film room and running the plays through again and again in his mind since he could not play or even practice. I do worry that JP did not spend his downtime as well as he could since MM clearly decided that he needed to deliver the boy wonder a lesson by throwing him into mop-up duty in the NE game at the last minute. JP was so bad in that game (a fumble and an INT) as he looked like a deer in the headlights, it had to be a real world lesson to him that when you put on the jersey you must be ready to play. We'll see. I was quite intrigued by Kyle Boller's comments at last year's draft about his own injury his rookie season that one surprise he found was that there was stuff to learn sitting on the sidelines unable to play that he said you could not learn playing game. I had a firm belief that you had to play to develop and that is still true, but I did realize (unlike folks like the late-lamented ICE) that while playing is essential, there are ADDITIONAL lessons which are better learned with a better perspective of the whole field and without the added distraction of preparing yourself to play just in case. I hope that we hear JP say after he has tremendous success this season thay in fact the downtime from the injury was just the thing he needed to go to "finishing" school with Sam Wyche and to really learn not only what worked as a QB, but why things worked or did not work as well. We'll see.