RuntheDamnBall

Losman lost his job thanks to Vince Wilfork and a coaching staff that had not been a part of the regime that drafted him. Say what you will, but they didn't really look at Losman as part of the long-term plan and they weren't going to give him a fair shot. I think both regimes were complete sh--shows, so don't mark me down as a Losman fan for it. I think he was, by virtue of his background, more likely to bust, but he could certainly have sat behind Favre with a stable coaching staff as Aaron Rodgers did and lucked into a different career. It's possible. By your logic, by the way, Fitzpatrick took Edwards' job on performance alone, and not because of injuries. Rationalizing anything the last coaching staff did here takes a leap of faith and about ten shots of whisky as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't read a whole lot into their conclusions. Nice copy/pasting job also.

You know, I agree... but why does that excuse wash for Edwards and not for Losman? Personally, I see them both having suffered the same fate. I think Edwards might have ended up being the better QB for this team, but I don't see Losman as having been a certifiable bust, esp. by virtue of his advancement in 2006. I think the coaching and strategy has been terrible and it pretty much sunk any chances for any QB over the past few seasons. It's clear no one knew what they were doing. Or, if they did, they had no perspective and limited understanding of context.

If he were fat I think a whole lot more Bills fans would like him. I don't know how one has "potential" bust written all over him. It's as though he has "potential" written all over him as well. The fact is, after one year, he's pretty much what he was when they drafted him: unfulfilled potential. So what? We'll see in the course of a few years. Just because he wasn't the wisest pick doesn't mean he can't be a good player for the Bills. I'd prefer to see him become that than to win an internet argument that he was the wrong pick and a guaranteed bust.

They accidentally pushed the "basketball" button on the DrafTek machine.

Revisionist history. The SD game was after the concussion. He may have been suffering lingering effects from the concussion, or facing increased anxiety after further hits. The fact that he came back (after the bye week) to have a strong game against SD is just part of what makes his horrid regression so confounding.

Oh my god, is that a t-shirt and shorts? By the way, does "had" = "how" in your neck of Wisconsin? How dare someone tell children to eat right and play outside?! Next thing you'll have some first lady putting out propaganda telling kids to read. Jesus Christ you're a moron.

I disagree with none of this. The municipalities and states also need to wise up and not count on the Fed Gov dollars, and not spend on frivolous capital projects all the time. I've seen magnificent school buildings go up in WNY in the past ten years with little accounting for the dwindling populations. They're half-full now. It's asinine.

I agree that that's a decent possibility. Honest question for your own opinion: how can we get more qualified teachers in our schools? Do we entice them to defect from the private sector? Do we close all schools and start from scratch? It's really a conundrum, and I don't think eliminating the public school system is an option if we want a safe and civil society.

I think the one area where they need to exist - or that some other type of job protection needs to exist - is to protect teachers from the parent or school board that has a particular agenda against them, often for reasons such as the teacher asks the kid to "work too hard." I've definitely seen some good teachers bounced before tenure because a school board member's son flunked their class. Tenure is its own problem and I don't know that that's the answer. I do like the parent-school contract model of the charter schools, though it's sad and silly that such a thing needs to be expressed in writing. There needs to be a better review process when a teacher is facing reprimand for misdeeds ranging from harsh grading to corporal punishment to legitimate abuse. I'd also like to see more alternative educational models including more vocational ed, more personal finance taught in schools, and less emphasis on college for everyone straight out of high school as the only path to success.

I have a friend who works for Brooklyn Public Schools in ESL. He has worked in SC public schools (no union), a charter school in NYC (no union) and now for NYC public. He thinks there are things about each system that are very positive. For example, he'd like to initiate some of the training and extra programs with parents that the union-free schools mandated, but the union is sort of a brickwall to that, which is sad, unfortunate and stupid. However, he explained to me a few reasons that charter schools aren't really a failsafe solution. He says that one statistic about the charter schools that really doesn't tell the whole story is the high graduation rates. Reason being: they can kick out anyone they want, whenever they want. So, while admissions are competitive no matter your background, they can kick a kid out for simply being "disruptive," which is judged pretty loosely. Hence, the kids who they think might not graduate in an opening class of 50 get bounced to a public school in mid-semester, where they can drag down a classroom but can't get kicked out. But all 30 remaining kids in that charter school class graduate and the numbers look great. I think charter schools can do a world of good, but they are relying on public schools as their safety valve to this point.

Knowing that nothing short of "all teachers are stupid leeches - school's out for EVER!" would satisfy you, let me respond. So, 30K union supporters - not all of whom teachers - represent the 200,000-member teachers’ union, or all teachers in general? You're getting me entirely wrong here. I think the pay freezes should happen - it's a classic case of not seeing the forest for the trees. And NJ has major issues. As for my response above, I was simply saying that this one arrogant and "unhappy teacher" that is obviously more fortunate than she realizes cuts a nice target for Christie - and a single face is easy to focus on for those too lazy to focus on the entirety of the issue at hand. I would say in the same way that Christie makes an easy target for the unions and it's a lot easier to focus on him as the bad guy than to face the real issues. This is a systemic problem that needs people who will act like adults to solve it. I won't be holding my breath. I think the union has an appropriate grievance in saying it's a violation of collective bargaining, and they are trying to avoid setting a precedent where their contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on. I don't think it's a very smart position, though -- I'd say let's work on saving the jobs and realize what's at stake here, and try to look better than Christie in the face of this by not playing the victim card. However, demonizing teachers at large is not going to get you the thing you want, which is ultimately better teachers. As with doctors and frivolous lawsuits, there'll be plenty of people saying the position is not worth it in the face of insane public scrutiny, parents whose kids can do no wrong, unfunded mandates and threats based on tests that have little to do with building the skills kids need to succeed in life. But carry on. All teachers is dumb and lazy and overpaid!

Good teachers are worth their weight in gold. Good teachers inspire kids to do better and help them aspire to things that were previously outside their knowledge base. Good teachers work with parents and want to do more - and some that I know even push the unions to be able to do more after school work, training that isn't mandated, etc. Unfortunately too many are in it for the wrong reasons. I don't think there's much justification for the ladder of pay increases without any merit factoring into it, but I think good teachers deserve more incentives. Bad ones deserve less. We should be looking to glorify and magnify the role to get better people in the mix. Giving teachers a beating just because some of them - or in a lot of cases the unions - deserve it, serves no purposes other than to steer more good people away from the potential minefield. Good chemists and physicists and mathematicians and businesspeople surely turn the role down in part because of the pay scale - or the deferred and uncertain nature of retirement prospects in this day and age. As with most things, it's tough to demonize the whole field just because of certain outrageous people. Teachers like that cut an easy target for Christie, but they don't represent the whole and they don't represent the teachers I know.

LOL. Seriously, when I'm trying to get a toddler home and am on one side of the car, and the train operator scolds me because he can't figure out how get his dumb ass through the other side, and just about everyone in the car gives the guy a "you're a douchebag" look, that's attitude. The dude deserved a few weeks' unpaid leave.

Jesus. The transit workers' union and the MTA are pretty much skipping their way to hell holding hands. I know a few good transit employees but I can't believe the sense of entitlement and attitude a lot of them have, and I can't believe how much corruption runs rampant in the MTA. They "lose" or misplace money all over the place. Both of them need a major kick in the ass.

possibly, though I have it on good authority that Biden is waaaay "for" these kinds of actions.

I'm confused. I thought Obama was soft on / pallin' around with terrorists. Somebody please rectify the narrative.

BTW, if you'd gone on to use your awesome reading skills further, you'd see George W. Bush's food stamp program chair mention that the program "responds to the changing economic conditions of the country." If you have a problem with the program itself, that's fine - mention it, and mention your solution. I'm pretty sure "starve the poor children, they should be responsible for themselves," will go over just fine, as I'm also pretty sure you have no other good ideas. Also, in the context-free zone nobody pays attention to inflation, or diabetes, or the consumption of cheap processed foods [mostly grains] vs. real vegetables and a balanced portion of meats. But I understand; all this would get in the way of reactionary headline-browsing. How are the Klan meetings going lately? Now that we're out of winter the fields must be prime for blazin'!

This.

What's a career-tit, and where can you find them?

True - something I was trying to articulate earlier... I offered this thought more to counter the notion that one can "only be about the human race" and that somehow the environment humans live in matters little to human survival. This was before I remembered that stupidity wins every argument.

!@#$ it, you're right. Humans rule, earth drools, and anyone who says there's a connection between the life of one and the other is an idiot. You win. Have a nice gulf coast seafood victory dinner on me.

If you're "about the human race," you might consider that plastics and the petroleum they come from are finite resources. Humans in the future will need to figure this out a lot sooner for our mismanagement of them. You also might consider that all of the chemicals that go into the making of plastics and products derived from petrol, despite the fact that some are "from the earth," are not all that good for the human race (see PCBs etc). A true conservative (and I don't know whether you call yourself one or not) knows not to waste the precious things he has, and not to take more than he needs. I don't know why there's a disconnect between this approach to government wastefulness and individual human wastefulness, other than to say that those ideals have been corrupted in the political mainstream to fit the narrative of single-minded profitability. Environmentalism doesn't need to be about crisis or about tree huggers, but about protecting the valuable things we have so that our (human) sons and daughters can enjoy and use them. I don't expect you to get that, though.

I know they haven't gone first round with many picks, but they seem to be following that strategy and at the very least pursuing depth on the lines. Wang is an intriguing prospect, as is Meredith, and while I have very little confidence in a somewhat healthy Bell, this staff seems to have some. I also don't mind Hangartner but I'd love to see an All-Pro center again in Buffalo. I think the position is far underrated in its importance, even moreso than the left tackle position. Every great team has a top-notch center IMO. Jury's out on Green, Bell, Hangman being good pieces. The health of Wood is a big factor, too. Hopefully Spiller can take some pressure off while they heal up.

I know it's plenty of years ago, but the Steelers made the second round of the playoffs in 1996 with an offense basically built with these players: QB: Mike Tomczak, Kordell Stewart, Jim Miller RB: Bettis C: D. Dawson WR: Charles Johnson Yancey Thigpen Andre Hastings TE: Mark Bruener The WRs were nothing to write home about. The QB "success" of Tomczak, a true stinker, should be considered a McGyver job by Gailey. The O-Line was not at all one of the Steelers' greatest casts, though I always remember them being solid and Dawson was a fantastic anchor. Basically this offense thrived on Bettis and Slash play. I see the Bills offense as having far better potential pieces, but with a lot of work to do to get them all lined up. The Steelers as usual had a very good defense, but a lot of the big pieces were aging. The next year they just missed the Super Bowl, losing to Denver, with Kordell freaking Stewart at the helm. This should be enough to generate some mild confidence in Gailey's potential to work with this cast. Of course, the franchise isn't the Steelers, but I think they're turning the corner.