RuntheDamnBall

There is some upstate / WNY blurring there!

Well-stated.

Fair enough, but not everyone with a drug failure on their record is a potentially violent person. We haven't seen any reports that suggest that Rogers is - and there had been some reports that AH was. I do think it's somewhere in-between as regards the Pats. They likely knew that AH could snap, do something stupid, etc. I think killing someone (and doing so in a calculated way) is a brand of darkness that they surely didn't think he had in him, or they simply wouldn't have drafted him. To believe otherwise is pretty nuts.

I'll bite. 1) He possibly has a drinking problem. Your point is well-enough argued. He may grow out of it, or he may need actual help. 2) There is definitely not much reason for us to care about it. 3) There may be a reason for a team looking at drafting him to care about it. There may not. There have been worse people making worse mistakes who did better for their NFL franchises (on the field, at least). 4) There certainly is plenty for the Manning camp to care about, because it reflects upon them and the atmosphere they are trying to provide these kids. 5) It sucks for these kids to get this kind of lousy treatment from one of the headline participants 6) At the same time, the Manning camp isn't exactly for poverty-stricken charity cases -- most of these kids are being groomed to become the next generation of college and potentially NFL QBs. They will do fine. 7) Manziel may want to re-evaluate his conduct as it will seriously affect his future earning power. But he could use a role model to kick him in the azz, too, and he won't get that. College football royalty usually gets the white-glove treatment and I doubt his team will do much to stop him if he keeps winning football games. 8) He and Aaron Hernandez are in different universes of humanity and conduct, and that is pretty much the only way that their names should appear in the same sentence.

That, or they didn't have much fun in college.

ESPN is a mixed bag. The 30-for-30 series and the online content is great. The network kind of sucks. The sports coverage was better when they weren't broadcasting so many games. They are too intertwined with it now.

Me, too. I really liked him in that made-for-TV movie, "Idiot Kicker."

If you're such a purist, tell me, were all those years in which it was decided by record in actual games somehow bucking tradition? It's much less fair for a team that squeaked into the playoffs to get home field advantage because Max Scherzer, Mariano Rivera and Chris Sale pitched a great inning or two apiece. I seriously doubt Chris Sale is going to be sitting at home bragging to his National League friends about the All Star Game on Twitter when Detroit has home field advantage in the world series. Sorry, this "league bragging rights" business is nuts. For all the complaining about whining, it sounds like you're whining about the wild card and other changes made to the system, which is probably a fair critique.

Oh, spare us. John Stewart makes delicious fun of Obama and co. He's good at it. Jay Leno's jokes are stale, and no amount of presidential humor really makes him edgy. He was making Monica Lewinsky jokes in like, 2003. While we're talking about what was most popular... what was the most popular song last year? I'll bet it was really awesome and should not be held up to criticism.

He is, with the mild caveat that *any* closer's true impact on the game is quite a bit less than it's usually made out to be. Still, he's a no-doubt HOFer who has contributed greatly to some excellent teams in high-leverage situations.

That's a much clearer-headed assessment than the notion that the NCAA should make an example of him, and that he should be lumped in with Aaron Hernandez. Anyway, parenting could go a long way (though the impact that could have on JM is nil at this point), and programs not treating these guys like a separate class of college students would also help. Lowering the drinking age might help. Probably a discussion for another time, though.

This was the dumbest possible way to make it mean something. WS home field should be decided by the record of the teams, nothing else. It was an ill-advised face-saving move by Selig after the tie-ASG disaster, and a pretty cynical ploy by Fox to get people to watch. The SF Giants ride a hot streak into the playoffs, and because 30 guys who don't play for them had a good exhibition game, they get home field advantage? That was awesome. I am a Jays and Mets fan and by nature do not like the Yankees, but was happy to see Rivera get a nice send-off.

Have you ever seen "Idiocracy"?

Are we talking about the YPA stat? I am kind of intrigued by Freeman, but Manning is definitely a level above those two - perhaps a couple of levels. I'm not much of a believer in clutch-performance as a statistically verifiable phenomenon, but Manning has definitely proven he is a better QB than those two. And I'd argue that Manning's teams were not as good as some of those Schaub has played for. Anyway, Jairus Byrd, right?

I don't think it has much to do with not being PC. I think it has everything to do with being the opposite of "fresh." Leno is so far from being able to comment on real life that I would be surprised if he knows what half the jokes being written for him are about. Also, I'm reasonably certain he writes next to none of his jokes.

This statement is like the slightly less annoying little cousin of "we didn't win anything with _________, we can lose just as easily without him!". No one player does make or break a 53 man team. Not even Tom Brady. Now lose a guy like that for good, without a good plan to replace him, and your team is surely worse. It can rarely hurt your team to have more good players. Byrd is the best the Bills have, and really the only established NFL safety. The Bills can prove their point and have the moral upper hand and win the strange battle where fans are siding with the billionaire, and yet end up with a worse team. Aaron Williams was everyone's favorite whipping boy last year, but in 2013-14 he is going to be a quality starting safety, according to many here. Duke Williams has never played a down of NFL ball, but he is positioned to start at present. Marcus Easley should be reason enough for no one to trust a 4th rounder to come in and start, let alone to stay healthy or to simply contribute. He is just as easily the next Justin Rogers or Da'Norris Searcy - a replacement level NFL player. That is what most 4th rounders end up being. Be careful what you all wish for, is what I am saying, I guess.

He was never the same after Kirk Gibson tackled him before that first pitch in Arizona. Except he threw a pretty good one in San Diego.

The Berlin Wall.

Totally. You never know what's going to happen when the undisputed leader of your football team is known to have issues with the bottle.

He never declared, which simply means he was ripe for the taking by a shrewd team.

I agree, it's crazy that no team even took a chance on him with a 6th rounder.

It always takes at least two, and usually more when an agent is involved, to come to an agreement, though. It is possible the Bills did just that, and the offer was not sweet enough to offset the potentially greater dollars available when he hit FA. Agents will often advise players to take that risk in pursuit of a greater payday. I would love to see a system like baseball's emerge, where there is arbitration and perhaps more controllable years for teams. I don't think you'll ever see that without a move toward guaranteed contracts, though.

I think the solution (as I see it) could be some kind of slotting for franchise tagged players to sign a short multiyear (3 year, maybe guaranteed, but no bonus?) deal. If there is some option of a kind of by-the-book solution that could give the player a little more security without committing the team to five years, it might make things a little more flexible for both players and teams. Obviously something that would have to be approved in a new CBA, and probably not realistic for a host of reasons. I tend to agree.

That WGR article kind of shows how screwed up the franchise tag is as a device for keeping salaries in check. On one hand, it's effective, but it comes at the cost of upper-tier players not being on the field, or not being at their best due to estranged relations with the team. It seems kind of needless when all is said and done. It is not, as is mentioned, really used on "franchise" players like a HOF caliber QB because these players already get re-signed by teams that want to keep them. I'm not sure that it's the best way to reach the desired result. I think anyone who is faulting either side in this negotiation for behaving the way they are, is ignoring that this is really just the way that the system makes it play out. Byrd (and really, Parker) would be foolish to not base his negotiation strategy on what similar players are earning. The Bills, OTOH, have to be careful about giving that kind of money to a safety. Personally, I hope the Bills cave because they are better with Byrd and don't appear to be in cap trouble, but there are questions about precedent and keeping other players in the fold. And it makes sense to ask those questions. Hope it works out with Jairus staying here.

I was going to say the same. Everett's injury was awful, and deflating, but what I remember is that the guy overcame the odds and the medical staff did a heroic job of turning this into a best-case scenario. Burroughs' injury was tragic and it came at a time when the Bills were on the cusp of great things.