Fake-Fat Sunny

The problem here maybe that wanting to move beyond the Bkedsoe years ab=nd actually moving beyond the Bledsoe years are two different things. Virtually everyone except the most diehard of Bledsoe supporters would be overjoyed to see the Bills move on to the next alternative because of Bledsoe's lack of production. However, anyone with more than a kneejerk opinion against Bledsoe recognizes that the contractual obligations made by the Bills make life far more than the simple matter of cutting him and reloading. Further, any thoughtful fan recognizes that in order to develop into a winning NFL QB Losman MUST play, but that a reasonable development stragegy for him involves a lot more than simply throwing him in to play until he is ready to get good developmental experience from playing. In my mind Bledsoe almost certainly needs to be cut in order for the Bills to get better, but his contract was written to make a cut of him easily manageable if he played both this season and next. The earliest you can reasonably cut him and manage the implications of accelerating his bonus (a real management issue since the impossibility of managing the huge cap hit his trade cost NE actually played a lead role in them failing to make the playoffs both right after and right before SB wins) will be June of 2005. Even beyond that comes the question of developing JP. He has and shows a lot, but the way he was thrown into mop-up time against NE was instructive mostly in that starting him before he is ready is likely to produce the same result. A week of reps is not going to teach him to adequately read and understand NFL offenses and defenses. A week of additional reps will not allow him to iron out the mechanical issues which were easily seen in the highlights of him running for his life at Tulane Start JP when he is ready to start and not a moment too soon or a moment later than he is ready to develop and grow correctly from the starting experience. In the mean time, take the ,amy opportunities which our lousy record, match-up discrpancies and maybe even injuries will give JP to allow him to play.

I know some folks want to rewrite history and wax philosophically about how GW's work as a well-paid DC work in DC makes them consider maybe he got a raw deal here, but I think that it mostly emphasizes that he is a great DC, but what we see so far of MM shows GW was in over his head as our HC. This doesn't mean MM is perfect at all (he makes rookie HC errors virtually every gameI but a comparison between the outcomes of 3 years under GW compared with what we can see or is developing under MM reveals that the comparison ain't even close. Certainly one of the primary measures I look at is the co-ordinator hires and whether the HC has picked guys for the job who can get the job done. To date: OC MM- Clements has had some struggles trying to put lipstick on the pig of Drew's play. To the extent MM and Clements merely said how high and what color wgeb TD informed them that it could work with Drew it doesn't speak well for them, but ifthey endorsed or argued for this move it speaks to them being a bit over confident in what miracles they could produce. Over time we will get the truth. However, beyond this central problem I like what I see of our offensive braintrust. OL- I agree with Simon that one can see the positives JMac has brought to the OL which has produced several sack free games even blocking for someone folks call the statue. In addition, they have blocked for WM racking up 4 100 yard games in his five starts. Even in the debacle against NE, pundits are actually pointing to the OL performance as not being at fault for this disaster. JMac inherited a troubled OL at best and has found at least part of a starter to replace Ruben from a UDFA on the Ravens PS, likewise he inherited MW who had not only disappointed folks with his play but had a major meltdown of unprofessionalism this off-season due to a death in his family. JMac seeked to play a key role in adjusting his attitude and bringing him along. We faced disaster with injury to Teague but GW acquired replacement Tucker filled this role under JMac's guidance. Overall, I like what I see ven though challenges lie ahead as Jennings is probably gone this off-season. The redzone issues speak to the effectiveness and outside the box thinking of this crew. The switch to use of Bannan has proved to be masterful as it was effective in producing TDs and served to mostly light a fire under Smith without simply giving up on the young player. WR- Though unsettled as the passing game has its issues, Evans appears to be developing well. Moulds still has his acrobatic athleticism and though he does seem to get out of control from time to time he is piling up some catch numbers this year. Reed has not responded as of yet and he will probably be down to his last chance. Aiken is still a younster but definitely produced this weekend and overall has made us feel fairly comfortable with the loss of Shaw, Again contract issues surrounding Moulds cap hit next year create some uncertainty but I feel pretty good about WR. TE- This also seemed to be a non-area of contribution until Campbell turned into Ben Coates this weekend. Also Peters seems to have emerged on ST and as a pro and his soft hands and speed in a big body was what kept him around anyway. His blocking ability was actually the big question mark and the fact he made the roster as a tackle bodes well in this regard. Euhus has not broken out bit has not disappointed yet either as expectations for a rookie TE are relatively low anyway. At any rate since MM is a former TE one has to feel hopeful about this position. RB- WM. Major kudos to TD if this works for the rest of this season like it has worked so far. Henry still seems to have trade value in some circles. Folks speak highly of Shelton though I have yet to see little yet to make me forget Dash and Centers, A great reception by him this past weekend got called back by a penalty so hope springs eternal. At any rate WM! GW- Mike Sheppard fired with a year left on his contract. Kevin Killdrive fired with a year left on his contract. Pat Ruel and Vinky fired with a year left on their contracts. Summary- Even with some big O questions big advantage to GW DC- MM- Jerry Gray certainly merited an extension as he has proved he not only is a great tactician in quickly mastering the LeBeau design as defensive signal caller on a top 4 D, but has proved himself a strategiv wizard with a series of halftime adjustments which have simply shut down opponents. Even after the NE debacle this crew is still statistically in the top 5. Solving the weak pass rush problem is still an issue. GW- He deserves some credit for picking a good guy and for the learning he got in his first DC stint which provided a basis for the coach he is today. Nevertheless, he was a defensive genius and bears at least some of the shared blame for the D meltdown on his watch which was fixed in conjunction with LeBeau coming aboard with a non0GW D scheme. Even if you want to blame the bad players GW had for the failure of his scheme, who really attracted Robinson and Jenkins here and should have known they were done. Summary: Same guy so only a slight advantage to the MM era/ ST MM- Bobby April and what is arguably the best ST in the league with likely Pro Bowler Moorman, likely Pro Bowl KR guy McGee and a dual betwen Clements and Fast Fredy as to who is the best PR guy. Lindell is solid inside the 35 and works well with this coverage unit but shows that TD was wrong with statements that good kickers are a dime a dozen. GW- The fact that his buddy Smith was the best performer of his co-ordinators does not say much. Negatives like them giving up two returns for TDs in one game against the Jets and the brain cramps of Wire on SE acting on a Smith recommendation to go for the block (matching a stupid fake punt call against Jax shows how feeble they were. Summary- Great credit to April for pushing for use of starters on ST (an insistence that apparently got him canned in St. Louis) gives a huge advantage to MM here. Again, MM has picked guys who arguably anddemonstrably can do their jobs and GW did not on what is one of the primary measures of a good HC.

I think the trap to avoid here is the one that the only two choices regarding JP are to start him or to bench him. JP can get playing time in a mop-up role in blowouts (either way in a NE game or a Rams style game), he can get playing time if put in for an ineffective Bledsoe (not unlikely given some of the clunkers Bledsoe has laid this year), he can get playing time if Blesoe is hurt (not unlikely goven the rate that QBs go down for our team). The major difference between him starting and him coming it woulfd actually be that he would get more practice time with the first unit and that opponents would be loaded for bear for the rookie. Even if you know playing is the ONLY way to master parts of the game, then the poster should recognize there are other ways of playing beside starting. The Bills have shown the habit with their injury rehab and breaking in players of conservatism (McGee showed good of being a playmaker and contributor last season but they brought him along slowly until forced by injury to start him, the cries for WM to start began in earnest last season but he did not play regularly unto into this season, Fast Freddy has showed signs of being a contributor but being undisciplined right from the start and he even was cut and PSed). I see no reason to think they will do more with JP than bring him along slowly. My bet is that he plays and plays some significant time in 2004 but that he never starts. I hope I am wrong and he produces so well he cannot be denied a start. However, given the work a rookie usually needs to become a vet, the fact he has missed significant time and practice due to his injury and the mechanical issues which were obvious in the films of his running for his life at Tulane he is not ready to start yet amd develop into our QB of the future. My sense is that you start JP as soon as he is ready and not a moment to soon or a moment later.

The difficul thing for us is that TD signed Bledsoe to a contract which makes it manageable but quite painful for us to cut himeven if we wait until June 2005 (it is both painful and unmanageable to cut him sooner). I think the only way we keep him is if he says that his role in 2005 is primarily to train JP to take over the reins. I doubt this happens so we likely cut him because not only would the results have to be the Bills winning out, but Bledsoe needs to establish himself as a primary reason this resurgence. His has struggled so much this season particularly in the NE blow-out that merely playing a strong supporting role with a couple of forgiveable mistakes as he did this weekend will not establish him as a quality NFL starting meriting a $6+ million salary holding down our future QB. Perhaps, if he was upfront about turning over the reins and being the teamer he has been in the past, the fans and the media could live with an equation where he stays. However, I just don't see this happening not only in terms of events but in the reactions of a competitor to the events which won't happen.

Certainly after the second season when we improved from 3-13 to 8-8 I still advocated canning GW that off-season because it seemed clear to me he could not do the job unless TD was willing to intrude pretty forcefully. He did not do this because if he did it likely would have meant he might has well fire GW since an OC changes of KG would have meant declaring GW a 2 time loser at hiring an OC (Shwppard and then KG) and this would have been on top of him bringing in his buddy LeBeau to augment Gray. Even additional subsidiary changes like KG, Smith or whatever would have been sucha vote of no confidence in GW that he may have well have canned him. In retrospect he should have.

I think the question right now is how much faith do you have in the Bills coaching staff and footbsll braintrust. I think MM has had the hiccups typical of a rookie HC I think they really lost control of the game and clock at the half yesterday when they called a TO that was sensless to the announcers and to me, failed to covert, kicked a chipshot FG and left the Rams with 30 secinds or so that fortunately meant nothing since the Rams did nothing after some good kick coverage by us)and some bad breaks on top of it (Jax has several prayers answered at the end of the first game and the refs made several bad calls in the Oak game). However, though they got spanked by a much better coach and team in NE, the braintrust has righted the ship of state and there is a proven track record of offensive and QB management that gives me faith in them. The question is will they start JP when he is ready and not a moment sooner and not a moment later. I think they will and I'm comfortable that they are not likely to rush his development by starting him before he is ready. This probably means that the JP era starts in 2005 (though i suspect he will get a healthy dose of playing time in a mop-up or 1 quarter role that will probably suit his development well. If he earns more playing time from his performance then play him more, but if there are more appearances like his last star turn in the waning moments of the Pats game then taking it slow sounds good for his development.

The stopping point which hit me and changed my attitude about what it takes to draft and develop a QB capable winning the SB (the goal as you pointed out in the last line of your post) is that the last QB drafted in the 1st round to deliver an SB win to the team which drafted him was Dallas selecting Aikman in 1989. Since then 1st round picks have certainly won SBs, but they have won them for teams other than the one which drafted them as teams have built up expectations on and gave up on the Farve's, Young's, Dilfer's, and Johnson's of the world. Perhaps the best example of developing a QB from near start to finish was Elway, but even he: 1. Did not deliver an SB to the team which drafted him as he forced a trade to a stronger Denver team and, 2. Only won an SB finally when he realized that the the team was more important than the self and did not sign for his market value so the team could hang onto Davis at RB and others. The lesson I think for the Bills now that we have spent a 1st rounder on a QB is that time is the key thing we can never create which must be guarded and sheparded with JP. There will be stark temptation to put him on the RoboQB track, but he has won and appeared in exactly as many SBs as Peuton Manning so far. In addition, RoboQB was judged a better talent by most pundits than JP and had a whole pre-season and a more well-rounded team around him so I think a pretty strong case needs to be made for why rushing JP along is a good idea. Beyond the demonstrably false application of logic that playing is the ONLY way to get better, there has been no demonstration whatsoever that he should start. I agree that he must play to get better, but last time I checked, playing themop-up role in blowouts, playing as an injury replacement, or even being put into play a quarter is PLAYING. I just don'tsee putting Losman on the panic development track which the Bills used to develop Todd Collins before he was ready or for us to use the development strategy used by two teams which cut Brad Johnson before he won the SB, Tampa Bay used to develop both Young and Favre or Carolina used on Trent Dilfer is the way for us to go. Maybe if we had only used a late draft pick as NE used on Brady and were forced to do it by injury I would start him, but starting him now seems more designed to satisfy folks pissed off by Bledsoe than to develop a young QB who needs a lot of work as best as I can tell before his mechanics and understanding of the vet game matches his athleticism and brash attitude. I thbnk he can lead men, I think he can play at pro speeds (two things which you can only get from playing), its his mechanics and his understanding of NFL offense and defenses which I think are the questions and there are other things he can (and as far as building chemostry correctly through having good mechanics must) do before he is ready to play and contribute to his development and the team.

No need to check the logs since obviously not knowing the real facts about what is going on (not i do not know the real facts either) has not stopped many posters from throwing out concepts on the board like JP must start now or that MM screwed up by throwing him to the wolves. It is simply amusing that some don't see the contradiction is both arguing that JP is ready to go as a contributing Bill now and the he needs to time, preparation and teaching to be reasonably expected to contribute to the Bills. I also had the unsupported theory that he was thrown into the game to teach him what Billy Joe Hobert failed to learn that you must be prepared to play any time you don the uniform and being prepared to play means: 1. Learn NFL offenses and defenses. 2. Get your mechanics down. 3. Practice, practice, practice, it can never replace playing but it can augment playing big time. I hope that JP has used the "gift" of getting injured to follow Sam Wyche around like a lap dog and have Sam download his knowledge to JP. The injury gave him an opportunity unfettered by preparing himself to lead men and also to yuck it up with the boys on the sidelines to improve his game in a way all rookies must improve their games on the way to becoming a vet. I hope he didn't need it, but the wake-up call theory sounds pretty legit to me.

The aspect of promoting the self rather than the team is certainly one of the problems in my mind that underlies what Whitlock points to in his column as the basis for his call to black athletes to give the customer what they want which is more sportmanship (or given the stories I have read about what Babe Ruth was really like the illusion of sportsmanship). I would hoever say that so-called blacj behavior is actually a symptom rather than the cause of this problem. The promotion of the self over the team is unfortunately a big part of the success that America has been the beneficiary of. It is through our commitment to competition that we have prospered from individuals looking to better themselves. I think it is central to why we have done better economically than the European style welfare states which have heavily taxed those who have done well economically to support universal health care, unemployment benefits, jobs for life despite inefficiencies and other parts of the social democracies of these states. However, there is a threshold question which now seems to be coming to the fore as we have become the sole superpower on this planet and we have raised consumption to a level unseen in human existence, Has our success in valuting the self resulted in such a demise of the team (or the tribe, or the country, or whatever grouping you want to label) that we have actually undercut things like sportmanship, caring for your neighbor (regardless of whether he is a red state type or a blue state type) or other stuff we view as central to our being is good. It's ironic that many of the consevatives types which pooh-pooh a phrase like it takes a village actually support development of the power of the churches and other pillars of society which are based on the village concept. There is true irony in that one of the great opponents of the religious rants of Osana Bin Laden actually has as one of the key drivers in his life his own religion views and apparently is dependent upon how their churches have come together effectively to influence the state for his victory in the Presidential race. The whole red state/blue state division reminds me actually of the color division sported by the Crips and the Bloods mentioned elsewhere in this thread. Self vs. Team? This is as old as America and America comes down firmly on the side of valuing the self for the most part. This gets reflected in our sports.

I guess (and like all other posters to TSW who are not in OBD and more preferably in TDs head this only a guess based on what it looks like he and the Bills are doing and the contract situations) that the Bills resigned Bledsoe to a contract which pays him well within but an amount that a quality starter would get in 2004 and 2005. After that point all bets are contractually off as the Bills can cut him with little contractual pain. I assume they did this with the thought that Losman would not be ready to start in 2004 and may well not be ready to start in 2005 (though he easily could be and they hoped he would). The problem is that Bledsoe has not played well enough this season to merit quality starter pay for his output this year and almost certainly won't in 2005 either. This has come about despite us movimg to a run first and then run against offense which is far more appropriate to what Bledsoe can produce since even at his best he has needed a top-notch HC to win with him at QB who emphasizes that he throw the damn ball (Parcells in having Bledsoe QB a team to the SB) or has him run a powered down offense which relies on his golden arm as a change-up rather than relying on it to win (he won a must-win game for Belicheck running a powered doen selective O designed for Brady). Bledsoe can win (despite what Bledsoe haters on this board says reality shows teams have won big time twice with him at QB) but in order to do so one cannot rely on him passing and his arm, one needs to rely on the potent threat he offers and mix it up. At any rate, Bledsoe's contract for next year call for him to be paid $6+ million if we keep him (anything at $7 million is a reasonable wage for a winning QB) but he has shown it is extremely difficult to win with him at QB. The Bills strike me as having limited choices: 1. Cut Bledsoe after June 1, 2005 which reduces his 2005 cap hit to $3+ million in dead space. This is regrettable but manageable financially. The big problem is that it forces us to rush Losman along and all signs indicate he will not be ready this year and maybe not next to start. 2. Try to make it work with Bledsoe. This looks really dubious to me, but perhaps if the team somrhow pulls it off in Seattle (not likely at all but possible) you can stuggle along developing this team into a winner in its final games of this season (though making the playoffs even winning out is pretty tough mathematically as well as being virtually impossible practically given all the road games and Bledsoe\s road performance to date). Still if this worked, one can develop JP in a more sane manner this year and you let the chips fall where they may in training camp next year. ICE and other posters say that the ONLY way to develop Bledsoe is to have him play and so start him yesterday. I agree that it is essential that a player play in order to have him develop, however, I disagree that starting him now (or quite frankly at any point this season) is the ONLY way he gets play. My sense is that the better part of intelligence is to start JP when he is ready to start and not a moment sooner or a moment later. However, rather than rushing his development by forcing him to start meaningless games, he should play this year in mop-up duty, to fill in for Bledsoe if he is hurt (though Matthews will be may unfortunate first choice as back-up), or possibly for a half in the dog days of the season if we lose another or two. It was interesting to hear Vic Carucci's take on thias situation last night on Dhannel 7 (he like the rest of us in no god who is always right, but he has been paid to pay too much attention to the NFL and has done so). He feels as I do that starting Losman right now and probably anytime in 2004 may actually do more to hurt his development as a player and the team than bringing him along slowly. My sense is that JP does get some serious starts in 2005, but it would be great for the Bills if somehow Bledsoe showed enough over the end of this season to merit giving him the time to not be put into the Todd Collins development speed program. Even with us having some proven QB rehabilitators guiding the O, I don't see them reviving Bledsoe's career in the few opportunites we have left to do so to not force JP to produce unfortunately sooner than he may be ready to do so.

Obviously as seen last week, the best OC/HCs in the league can do him in as they seem to do in just about everyone, but overall, the doubts some folks have expressed about J. Gray's strategic abilities have been answered for me by the Bills virtually every week for several weeks in a row having whatever deficits they have in against an opponent in the first half and then they make whatever adjustments they have to at halftime and essentially shut down the opponent in the second half. Gray showed what he could do last season as far as game tactics when he showed he had mastered the LeBeau run-blitz scheme by effectively making defensive play calls over the season. However, this season even without LeBeau he has showed a deft strategic touch as a DC. He has generally put together defensive game plans which have kept the Bills in every game. Even better, he has shown the ability to analyze what the opponent is doing well in the first half, to figure out the correct response for what the opponent does well, and communicate this in an effective way to his squad under the pressure of limited time at half time and the team has responded by shutting down the opponent. Hats off to J. Gray whose middle name appears to be Strategy as best as I can tell.

The way teams are playing this season certainly makes the best argument I have seen for taking it one game at a time. Particularly when you look at a game like the season-ender against Pitts which is a lifetime away, these are factors which can totally change the outcome of the game: 1. Resting players- The game will be totally different depending upon whether Pittsburgh needs it or not for homefield advantage or the playoffs. The Bills are unlikely to need it regarding the playoffs, but if events turn out that Pitts is simply resting up to get ready for their 1st playoff game and this game sees Bills players playing for jobs (or pride if a win makes them 8-8 even though they will miss the playoffs) I expect we will win going away. 2. Injuries- RoboQB has been superb but if an injury occurs which impact his ability to play I expect this game would be very different. This is less true at RB for Pitts as I think either Bettis or Staley can be good, but if WM went down the game outcome would be very different. 2. Weather- Both are rust belt cities, however, a windy day at the Ralph is a very different thing for anyone (particularly a rookie like RoboQB). Predictions are fun but pretty meaningless (as is shown by pre-season predictions from folks ranging from Howard Simon to ICE). Predict away on the internet but please don't take anything to the bank. Erie County welfare payments are high enough.

I don't think the question this post asks or is really a relevant one is whether he is as fast now as he was in college, but where he is in being 100% of where he can be. I don't think he will ever show the breakaway speed he showed in college because his opponents are pros now and simply faster that they are far more difficult to break away from than his college opponents. I don't care how he stacks up in a foot race against an opponent, I care whether he can avoid being tackled against in NFL players who are a culled selction of the fastest players he ever played against in college who consistently take better tackling angles and are stronger than the college players he faced. WM may be ten pounds of muscle heavier than he was in college and may well be slower because of it, however, if the real world result is that he is tougher to tackle and breaks through the secondary for long yardage. or is now able to vault a tackler who would never even have caught him college and amazingly come down in bounds, keep his balance, and get into the endzone (as he did today on the play called back by an off the play Evans foul) then I couldn't care less whether he was faster in the old days or not. I think Simon's concern is misplaced because as Trey Teague said today when interviewed by Murohy on the MM show, you set a new 100% all the time. I suspect that WM may well be slower in a footrace now than he was before his injury. However, I think we still have not seen him come back 100% to where he will comeback after his devastating injury AND I think as a 22 year old, he has several (assuming he remains healthy) of actually increasing the 100% of what he can achieve as he becomes more of a vet. Just as TT and other runners did not hit their peak until after a few years in the league, I suspect the same will be the case with WM and when he learns to read and set up his blocks even better he will be a better runner even if he slows down.

Exactly! Start JP when he is ready and not a moment sooner and not a moment later.

His punt return play really is phenomenal. I wondered when folks might begin to wonder why it took so long for him to be used in this role or even complain as part of the usual overblown rants against TD that this is some mistake he made or almost made. I think the interesting thing about him was that his appearances in pre-season and some undusciplined play by him when he finally forced his way off our PS and into the line-up indicated to me that he was an extremely talented player physically but mentally needed to really get ahold himself as he showed a tendency toward takind dumb penalties like unnecessary roughness calls. Thankfully, he seems to have found a role for himself where he contributes tons to this team and it is to be hoped he is learning or has learned how to stay in control so that he remains a force but not a detriment to the team.

The real question here is not simply the debate over what is science and what is pseudo-science, the real world question is what should society do in terms of action depending on which view you hold as to what is science or truth. Fortunately, regardless of what you feel about the science, I think society takes the same clear stance either way. This is a question of individual rights versus some supposedly scientiffic determination of rights. American society has decided that regardless of whether you have an adoration of "racial preservation" or of pcness, individuals have a right to think what they want to think and act as they wish to act as long as they do not interfere with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of others. Thus, even though it might make you Tony Dungy, or anyone happier if there is racial preservation, no one has the right to interfere with any racial mixing anyone wants to do. The Bell Curve book for example showed that anyone has the ability to think pretty much what they want about these issues and make scads of money publishing what they want. The author was obviously vigorously opposed by many, but they neither could stop his ideas from getting published with some prior restraint, stop him from making big bucks from its vigorous sale, or prevent its wide distribution and vigorous debate of its ideas. However, there was nothing advocated in this book and any effort to enforce actions on individuals to "preserve" any particular race would be vigorously and (correctly in my view) opposed in my view. In other words, it doesn't matter what you or Tony Dungy think if Nicoletter Sheridan and Terrell Owens decided to make some puppies. I think that is how it should be and I'm pretty certain that while most Americans neither want to sleep with Terrell or Nicolette, or see them do it on TV, they would vigorously defend their right to do so behind closed doors if they so choose, racial preservation be darned.

I think the key here is individual freedom. All individuals should have the right to take any action which does not harm another individuals rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. The only limitation to this is that when one is only happy when someone's else's individual rights to life and liberty are limited the individual who wants to limit others loses. Regardless of whether one is pursing preservation, purity, or what have you if to do so limits another person's right to liberty then in my view (and I think the vast majority of American society) then you lose.

I agree with the sense of things in the petition as it portrays the facts as I understand them. However, as many have pointed out the understanding of the facts for those of us who aren't there can be pretty limited or just plain wrong. In my view the rule of law is embodied in the military not following the whim of public opinion (be it in favor of the war or against it) the rule of law means that a properly vested military tribunal reviews cases of controversy and dispute (which this case certainly is) and makes a finding based on the facts (better collected and probably understood by those who were there) and by assiduously applying the rule of law make the appropriate finding in this case. As Darin from Alaska has said, based on the "facts" which I have heard. I doubt amy court of law finds against the is trooper. However, the petition uses specific language such as: It is my opinion that NOTHING should happen to this American Marine. He should be returned to his unit or be given an honorable discharge. Having an opinion either way is what America is about, but the action step advocated in this position of NOTHING happening to him and returning him to his unit or giving him an honorable discharge is in my view what eventually should happen to him, but I think that the safety of our troops and our American ideals are best served by the trooper having this happen to him after review of this case by a military court of justice which if it finds reason to do so may punish him in whatever manner rather than follow public opinion. It is exactly in the face of lawless and inhuman acts like those of the terrorists that we should be resolute in sticking to the rule and process of the law. I'm proud of this trooper for being brave enough to make a sacrifice for me and mine (particularly when our civilian leaders have said the great "sacrifice" we can make for the troopers is to shop). I'll be even prouder if the next sacrifice the trooper makes is to resolutely stand before a military tribunal, defend his actions and let the chips fall where they may. The petition seems to me to say that we are of the opinion that this process of justice should be short-circuited because we know the facts and the terrorists have abandoned the rule of law. My sense is that what makes us different is that we refuse to abandon the rule and process of the law regardless of what the terrorists do.

Not me. I woud love to know and it would help my betting and also figuring out what is what. However, since this is merely a form of entertainment, I hope that the Bills don't let the cat out of the bag about industries beyond the scanty information the rules require and quite frankly its fine if they fool me or even lie to me so as to deny enemy teams any information they can use to beat us. If I'm a Bills athlete and I still feel some pain in my leg or evenif its healed I feel some pain in my recovery there is only one correct answer if I do a press event about the leg. Everything is great and I feel no pain. Should I go above and beyond the requirements of the league and fess up honestly about any pain, then every yahoo I face in the game may give the leg a little tug, twist, or shot to lessen my play. I hope that JPs leg is totally healed and if its not that he lies to me, everybody else and the rest of the league about it.

No need for me to go into another long diatribe either, though the excuse this thread has provided has allowed me to think through the issues I really have no conclusive answer to. I will only reply to the section of your post sbove that in the face of refusal to abide by any laws by the terrorists it becomes evem ,more important for Americans to support the applicstion and rule of law. I agree with the things the petition says but I will not sign it because it presupposes an outcome with me knowing the facts I can glean from the internet and YV (to very unreliable sources of fact). I trust annd believe in my government enough to want my troops to enter into the court of miltary justice where fates of individuals should be determined by their collection of facts under the law.

Again I do not disagree at all with your estimate of the likelihood of our divilian leaders ever being able to build a coation like the one the first President Bush built for Operation Desert Storm. Actually the real impossible part of building a coaltion for this pre-emptive war compared to that reactive war is that the Saudis and many Arab countries were full participants in Operation Desert Storm because they feared that a Saddam with control of Kuwait's oil would soon be able to turn his sites on them. Middle-eastern Arab fear of Saddam got them to join that coalition with troops on the ground though it was still US troops who risked their lives and carried the miltary water with troops like the Kuwaitis ushered in for key roles for symbolism and for show after it was US troops who really were at greatest physical riak. The miost substantial role played by the Middle-Eastern Arab countries was that led by Saudi Arabia they paid for 90% of the costs for the oil and fuel necessary to transport tons of troops and materials from the US to the Mideast. Unfortunately, by building today's multi-lateral coalition which has involved far less taking on risk and far less financial support from other countries than the Operation Desert Storm Coalition there are real world implications: 1. We have to carry the major load of the post-war occupation and nation-building by ourselves essentially) our junior partners the Brits being the major exception). In order to do this well enough our xivilian leaders should have allocated far more US troops (military leaders have publicly estimated that a force of 300K-400K would be necessary based on the Kosovo experience). 2. Such large troop expenditures are quite difficult to maintain or even to create unless out country were willing to pay far higher taxes to attract far more troops or institute a draft. I think the guiding thinking on this issue should have been Colin Powell thought that the rule is if you break it you own it. The first President Bush made a correct decision not to do what would have been a fairly easy thing for our trioops to do of continuing their advance on to Baghdad in the early 90 because we were not prepared to occupy this country without the support of the Saudi et al. The second President Bush made a decision and was re-elected because of or in spite of having our troops take on this task without the sacrifice of those in the homeland in the form of higher taxes to increase our troop size to adequate levels so situations like the one this unfortunate trooper faced for us. I do no disagree with you at all that it was impossible to expect US civilian leaders to get shared contributions from our European allies, or greater import to the task we have asked out troops to take on, I also do not expect that they could obtain the support of Arab allies. All I argue in that in the face of these impossible coalition tasks, our civiilian leaders owed to the troops to ask for more sacrifice from those of us in the homeland to pay higher taxes for more troops so we could hold ground we took, for bullet-proof vest and other items to keep them safe. If our civilian leaders were unwilling to ask America to share the sacrifices of its troops because raising taxes would have cost them the election they we should not have launched a pre-emptive war. The results of not going to war may have been bad, but they would have been better than this outcome as best as I can tell where our troops are ordered to take mosques they do not have the troops to hold. This enemy combatant was killed because our leaders have not supplied our troops with the support they deserve.

Exactly, it is in these situations where the terrorists have rejected the rule of law that we have to not follow the terrorists lead and assidously follow the rules of law. In fact, if your reading of what will happen is correct (and as I read the situation it probably is correct) then all the more reason to not pre-suppose what should happen based almost totally on our internet derived info. The right thing to do here as best as I can tell is to sign petitions and advocate that a military court of justice consider the facts of this case and render a decision. Assming that the fourth estate of the media is doing its job and watching this case, we can reasonably assume a correct decision will be made and my bet it is like your's appears to be that this trooper will be exonerated. The thing that is unfortunate from my perspective about this petition is that it seems to advocate abandoning the rule of law and review of this case.

I know I tend to over-analyze my government actions when there seems to be too ;ittle dissent and analysis going within my governmnt itself. I think one of the reasons why the USA has been so great has been its system of checks and balances which has produced better answers than any one party or individual can produce themselves. I know I attend to worry when the 2 house of Congress and the Presidency are controlled by the same party be they Democrats or the GOP. I think this is an issue which cries out for analysis and discussion because the media (Fox, CNN or what have you) have also abandoned their role as the "fourth estate" which plays a watchdog role on all three branches of government. Inaction is bad, but lack of debate discussion and analysis is worse because it leads to bad actions.

One of the neat things for me from my 15+ years of living in Buffalo and being a Bills rooter is seeing how a lot of the fan base sticks with the team in good times and in bad times. Certainly there have been a pretty consistent record of bad football decions by folks who ran the team after the glory days of AFL championships. The team wa so bad and the decision so poor that they qualified to take Bruce Smith first in the draft because the stunk and made bad decisions. Yet, though all of this, even though fans disgreed with and even hated the idiot GM in charge. Even though until Ralph Wilson opened up the purse strings for Bruce Smith, Jim Kelly, and he used to throw nickels around like they were manhole covers. However, the Bills fan were like the mother of film director Vincent Gallo whom he has Angelica Huston protray in the movie Buffalo 66. in 30 years she had attended ever single Bills game except for the time her husband had a heart attack so she went to the hospital with him and missed a game. I certainly have reduced my financial support for the team as Ralph clearly doesn't need my money beyond what I pay him in tax dollars for the county owned Ralph Wilson stadium to keep the team here. Besides the real money which underlies the CBA and the growing partnership between the NFL and NFLPA is TV money so thanks to the many sellouts, It happens that Ralph gets to make big bucks and I chose more pften to enjoy the game in the comfort of mu pwn living room. I irony here is that if in fact Bills fans reasonably decide not to spend their hard earned dollars on the Bills because TD is providing a bad product, there will more blackouts and I will probably increase my attendance at games because this will be the only way I can see my team. So count me in with the Vincent Gallos of the world, if fans boycott the games as a bad product deserves in our system I will be more likely to go to the Ralph to get my fix.

I'd love to sign this because I think our troops deserve our prayers, support, and thanks for making the sacrfices they do in order to keep us safe. However, this moral quandary has been created by our civilian leaders who unfortunately have not assigned enough troops to do the job they have been ordered to do by those civilian leaders. I there were enough troops assigned to the task of fighting this "army" of terrorists who do not observe the rules of the nasty business of war, then we could hold the ground where the mosque sits and not have to send our troops back to it to face the same insurgents and wade through booby traps. Our civilian leaders also had the task of building support for this pre-emptive action which should have rivaled the coalition assembled in the early 90s for Operation Desert Storm. Today's cilvilian leaders have failed utterly in building a coalition which even comes close matching the financial commitment and even more inportant putting their troops lives on the line of the old multilateral coalition. There are many complex reasons for this failure as the old coalition was reacting to Saddam's occupation of Kuwait and this coalition is acting pre-emptively on Saddam. People can agree or disagree on issues surrounding this decision. However, once the die is cast and it is clear that our troop are going to take the vast majoirty of coalition casualties in leading the fight, then our civilian leaders have a moral and practical obligation to have our country commit enough troops, spend our tax dollars and join our troops in sacrifice to keep them safe. It is imaginable that there is some set of facts here that would justify the complete release from custody of the soldier who killed this enemy combatant. However, I think it would be unfair and actually against US soldiers interest for me or any US citizen to presuppose that our soldier was right absent a condsideration of the facts as investigated by a military court of justice (rather than the facts which may be true or may be in error as presented on the internet) I komw that many terorists do not follow any rules of war, but the reaction of the US needs to be to assiduously follow the rules of war we agree to in the face of the terrorists ignoring these rule. Should we sink to the level of the terrorists and say that all rules are off and that this case should be pre-or internet judged rather than using a court hearing we all will lose and our troops will be in more danger. As I said, I am quite sympathetic to expressing our unbridled support for individual troopers who quite frankly sacrifice for you and me. However, there are two things I endorse doing: 1. I support a US military court of justice looking thoroughly into this case and let the chips fall where they may ranging from return of this trooper full exonerated to his unit to whatever censure including his long-term incarceration if a military court so rules. 2, We are in the thick of war so it is difficult to do, but a full and public review should occur on to what extent our civilian leaders have let down our troops by not providing a sufficient number of boots on the ground to give them maximum possible protection of their lives and actually have them avoid moral traps and issues such as this one.