SectionC3

Unless they wanted to flip Henderson to LT.

Agreed. Although the offer to Bulaga (assuming it was made) might be evidence of a plan to slide Glenn inside. I'd like BPA tonight, but if the BPA analysis is close we should take a guard. In my view poor guard play has cost this team immensely over the past two years - at least two games in 2013 off the top of my head (cinci and kc), and it killed the screen and some aspects of the run game last year. Also, as an aside, we need a short yardage back in the worst way. Summers was the best of a bad lot recently, and I am only slightly exaggerating when I say that brad smith is the best short yardage back we've had in awhile. This won't be popular, but I get managements desire to cut Fred to save money and to find a back with short yardage ability (something at which fred isn't all that great).

So ... For all those who still want to debate the sammy trade. Would you trade sammy for Justin Gilbert, cameron Erving and a fourth round pick? I wouldn't. And I appreciate that someon might prefer ODB and a guy like Erving. Fair point. But one Sammy still try,ps what the Browns now have.

A more sinister possibility is that somebody within the organization who does not like Petty and who does not want the team to select him leaked news of the visit to broadcast the interest in him.

Not for nothing but in 1990 we opened against Indy. Now, 25 years after super bowl xxv we do the same thing. just sayin.'

He should have a different appellate attorney. It's a different specialty, and it allows Hernandez to make the ineffective assistance of counsel contention on appeal. The jurors' words will not be material here. Read one of my recent posts for explanation. I'll add here that it would be a little odd for Hernandez to contend on appeal that trial counsel was ineffective and then have the same attys defend him in the other murder case, but that's how it goes.

He will do intake at a max facility very close to Gillette. Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous, is it not? You must have read Florio. In something he posted this morning he mentioned the preponderance of the evidence standard in connection with this case.

I didn't see the comments of the jurors, but I think the words "for sure" might be key in your post. If I'm trying that case, and if my understanding of the evidence is correct, he was at the scene. Granted, the evidence placing him there is arguably circumstantial, but I think the defense had to acknowledge that he was there to try and salvage some credibility with the jury. The fact that, in hindsight, the jury was "shocked" by this "revelation" is just "one of those things." Acknowledging Hernandez's presence was the best play they had, and the fact that it didn't work is just life (pun intended). Indeed, sometimes jurors aren't all that smart. Think of one of the male jurors who was interviewed after the Corasanti criminal trial. To paraphrase, this guy went on TV and said that Corasanti was "reckless" in striking the victim with his automobile, but just not "reckless enough." Here's the deal. Recklessness in that context was a black or white thing. The actions either were reckless, or they were not. There was no question of degree there, and perhaps because that guy and a few others on the jury were a little slow on that point Corasanti was spared a state prison sentence. It's possible that there could have been some dullards on this jury who didn't pick up on the facts I noted above (assuming I have the facts right). I'll also pose a question. What was the better play here for the defense? Maybe to stand silent, argue that the evidence wasn't sufficient to prove murder 1, and hope for murder 2 and the possibility of parole? The case was about as strong a circumstantial case as you can have---like I said before, there was a mountain of circumstantial evidence. So I have no idea what the play is other than to admit he was there, which I think to any reasonable observer was a safe thing, and then argue that the prosecution couldn't prove that Hernandez either pulled the trigger or shared an intent to kill with the guy who pulled the trigger. Finally, about the appellate issues, to the extent an ineffective assistance of counsel contention hinges on the admission of Hernandez's presence at the scene of the murder, there is absolutely, positively, 100%, bet my house, no way Hernandez prevails on that question. Counsel is not ineffective (it is a double negative) when there is a strategic explanation for the alleged error. Here there obviously is. So Hernandez loses. In this state the jurors' comments with respect to surprise almost certainly wouldn't make a record on direct appeal---counsel could maybe sneak it in through a post trial motion---, but in any event the appellate court wouldn't consider it in evaluating an ineffective assistance contention. (There might be other ways to bring up the comments in NYS, and I'm not sure if Mass has similar mechanisms. But even if those comments get before a court, Hernandez will lose on this point because of the strategy reason.)

I strongly disagree. Read my earlier post in the thread. Short of a plea to murder 2 (which carries the possibility of parole), this was the best chance the defense had. There was no way around the fact that the evidence put him at the scene, and the defense had to come up with an explanation for how he could be there and not be responsible for what happened. The proof on this point will be in the pudding that will be the appeal. I'm not licensed in Massachusetts, but I would be very surprised if appellate counsel doesn't contend that trial counsel was ineffective in admitting Hernandez's presence at the scene on summation. In layman's terms, to say that a defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel means that defense counsel was so bad it was like having no attorney at all. That contention won't fly here because there is a strategic explanation for counsel's argument (the explanation I gave earlier in the thread). On balance, from what I understand the evidentiary rulings were favorable to Hernandez and there was no funny business at trial, so my guess is the best shot Hernandez has will be to argue that there isn't enough evidence to convict him of murder 1, and that his conviction should be reduced to murder 2. I wouldn't hold my breath. EDIT: I just read Florio's post on PFT on the topic. I think he's a smart guy, but I don't agree with at least a few things he's had to say about the trial. From what I understand, Hernandez's DNA was on a blunt found at the scene, tire tracks identified at the scene match the tread on the tires of the vehicle Hernandez drove on the night of the murder, and a shoe print found at the scene matches a sneaker photographed in Hernandez's closet during the execution of a search warrant prior to Hernandez's arrest. All due respect to Florio, but if I have all of that right, Hernandez was at the scene. I think it would have been fair comment for the prosecution to say as much, and I think the nitpicking here is simply misguided.

In sort of the same vein, I have long suspected that a certain poster on the board is a member of the front office. Won't ID the poster or the member of the front office, but some of the language the poster uses "fits" the way the member of the front office speaks.

Depends what the charge in Mass is. The equivalent charge in NYS is probably murder second, which is found in Penal Law 125.25. Subdivision 1 of that section (there are several parts) states that "A person is guilty of murder in the second degree when . . . [w]ith intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person . . . ." Ergo, no intent to cause death = no murder conviction. In this state the "beat down gone bad" theory could still result in a conviction on a lesser charge, such as manslaughter in the first degree. Someone is guilty of that crime when "with intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person." Serious physical injury has its own definition, which I won't get into here, but the obvious difference between murder and manslaughter in this context is the difference in intent. Assuming that Mass has similar penal laws of this state, and assuming that those similar laws are in play in the Hernandez trial, if the jury believes that Hernandez did not have or share the intent to kill the vic, there can be no murder conviction. So again, this is why the PCP defense is genius.

Agreed. But what if he wanted his two banger pals to merely throw a beating into the vic and one of them took it a step further than was anticipated, brought the gun into the mix, and put half a dozen bullets into the vic while Hernandez had his back turned? I know it sounds unlikely, but it is possible. That's why the PCP defense was outstanding, and it's why at least the murder charge isn't a sure thing for the People.

I couldn't resist the urge to join this threat because I do this type of legal work for a living and it's interesting to me to see people take an interest in something like this. I haven't followed the trial very closely, but I'm familiar with the basics. There is a mountain of circumstantial evidence that, among other things, strongly suggests that Hernandez was at the scene of the murder. I assume Hernandez was charged with what in New York State would be intentional murder (murder in the second degree) on the basis of accessorial conduct. In other words, the People probably alleged that Hernandez either pulled the trigger or had the same intent (to have the vic shot and killed) as the person who pulled the trigger. So the defense, without exaggeration, was brilliant. In a nutshell, the defense beat up on the prosecution witnesses during the prosecution's case and highlighted the obvious flaws in the People's case - no murder weapon, no triggerman, no motive (not that a motive is needed). Then, and this is where the brilliance comes in, the defense acknowledged Hernandez's presence at the murder scene but explained how the murder could have occurred without his involvement through the PCP point - one of the other two guys present snapped b/c of the PCP use and unexpectedly shot the vic. At the end of the day, the case probably comes down to whether the jury thinks the security cam in the house shows a gun in Hernandez's hand, and how the jury views Hernandez's destruction of the surveillance system and his phone (assuming, safely I think, that both of the latter points are in evidence). Ultimately I suspect those will be the things that do him in, and I think we'll get a guilty verdict by the middle of next week. Had the jury been sequestered, I suspect this would have been done by Friday afternoon. I will also say this: many times the questions the jury asks during deliberations provide insight as to what's going on in the jury room. Here the jury asked for an exhibit list at the outset of deliberations, which makes me think that it's a deliberative group that will do its job carefully. It may also mean that there are some sticklers in the room who may have a problem convicting someone of a murder charge based only on circumstantial evidence and who therefore want to review all of the evidence before voting the case. What really caught my eye, though, was the request for a supplemental instruction on the gun charge. It's tough to evaluate the request without knowing the wording of the charges against Hernandez, but it made me wonder whether the jury might buy the PCP defense on the murder charge and was thinking of moving on to the gun charge. (The murder count is the most serious charge against Hernandez and, based on the chronology of the court's instructions, the jury would likely consider that charge first.) Although I don't like to read tea leaves, it wouldn't shock me if Hernandez gets a hung jury or even a not guilty verdict on the murder charge. The possibility is a very small one, but it's there. And it's more than I would have thought to have existed at the outset of the trial.

Welcome back Bill. Agree with the thoughts on Marrone and Spiller. One (Spiller) is a good guy who I hope finds good things at his next stop, and the other, as was said here during the year, is a guy who acts like a bully and coaches like a wimp. Before one acts like Parcells one must win like Parcells, and I don't see that for Doug in the future. I'm glad he's gone. Another Doug point. Local media was once part of my life, and it is VERY interesting to me to hear the media either dumping on Doug or standing idly by as others do him dirty. This suggests to me that he was the punk that the recent reports have cast him to be. On the fred issue, I totally agree. He's a warrior, and he maybe has another year as a third down back, but he's done as even a tandem back. On Sammy, I disagree with BADOLBEELZ to the extent that he wouldn't make the trade. I wouldn't deal Sammy for Justin Gilbert and whomever goes at 19 this year (think a Shazier-type of guy) if given the chance. But, the idea of taking a QB high every year is a brilliant one and spot on. By the way, you guys are tow of my favorite posters here. Love the knowledge and the discourse.

No way Marrone gets an NFL offer this week. Not a chance. Pegula just elevated the value of every franchise in the league with his huge bid for the Bills, and his new partners just aren't going to poach his coach a few months after the purchase. Not a chance.

Erik Pears Kraig Urbik Keith Rivers Honorable mention: Chris Gragg

We should change the title of this thread to leaving Henderson out to dry is Hackett. I read "Hackett is leaving" and I got excited becaus I thought i could refer to Nate Hackett as our former offensive coordinator. Then I read the rest of the title and was disappointed. Again.

I agree on the inability of the staff to get sammy the ball. I also think sammy isn't quite right yet. I don't know how things looked on TV, but watching him walk around between plays led me to believe he's still a little bit ginger. Not that this is our problem, but the Browns have a tough decision on hoyer. The guy is a gamer but, at least from what i saw today, he's not a guy who is going to drive the ball down field. His first half was vaguely reminiscent of Andy dalton's game here last year.m dalton threw for 300 yards and was highly efficient on mostly safe stuff that stretched the field aside to side. I think he threw downfield nor more than a few times, and hiyer has some similar qualities.

Knock on wood things are OK in Orchard Park so far. The snowpack here is down by probably half and, surprisingly, I don't have any water in the basement. If we have temperatures as warm as forecast for this week I don't see how the stadium isn't ready for the Cleveland game.

I think the Dolphins game with the wall of snow might have been in the early 2000s. I want to say Bledsoe was the quarterback. I distinctly recall the skies opening at one of those games and some cheesy song about snow playing over the PA. I'm pretty sure Ray Lucas played for the Dolphins in that game. Totally agree that the Giants in '07 was the worst weather game ever here. I'd nominate the game against the Phoenix Cardinals in 1990 as another all-around crappy day. The home game against the Jets to clinch home field (I think 1991) should be on the list, too, because of the brutal cold and the snow and ice pervasive in the stadium. The wind impacted the goalposts in a season finale against New England. I'll add to the list of "best" weather games: the 1990 Miami playoff game was a blast, and I think there was enough snow at the first AFC championship game for it to make the list.

Open and able to handle the traffic are two different things. As of last night the roads were clear, but they were mostly covered in thick ice and they just can't handle a lot of traffic right now. I've lived in the Southtowns for 35 years, and I have never seen anything like this. Having been to nearly every game since 1990, I can also add this. I have no idea whatsoever what the Bills and the County are going to do about the snow in the parking lot. There is just no place to put it. And even if they pile it up, it reduces available spaces. With satellite lots largely closed for next week, I don't see how the Bills can park a normal volume of cars here. I'm as big a Bills supporter as there is, a longtime STH (my own as an adult, and with my dad as a kid), and the biggest Buffalo supporter you will find. In spite of all that, they simply cannot play on Sunday, and barring the intervention of a National Guard-like supply of snow moving equipment, I really struggle to see how the game could be played here on Monday. I'm not at all suggesting moving the Cleveland game, but I'm supplementing my point with respect to the Jets game by musing that even with melting parking is going to be limited and a mess for the Cleveland game.

I'm about two miles east of the stadium. It's coming down in buckets again. Prepare for the game to be played on Monday, and probably not here. This is an obscene amount of snow, and while I suspect the stadium could be cleared for game time, I have no idea how they'll handle the parking lots and make it so a large volume of spectators can attend. I just don't see how the equipment would be available to make it possible with everything else that is going on here.

I doubt the snow alone supports a dome. It would be one more roof that is in big trouble in the Southtowns now. Think of the Metrodome. Besides, clearing the stadium isn't really the issue. I bet that could be done by Monday night. It's more a matter of having a place to put all of the snow, and clearing the lots, and opening the roads, and freeing responders to work the game. For what it's worth, I live about two miles due east of the stadium, and we are getting pounded with snow as of 1:20p. We had "only" about a foot overnight, but I wouldn't be surprised if we've picked up another foot in the last couple of hours. This snow is different from that which fell yesterday in that it's lighter and easier to shovel, but I have my doubts as to hosting a game here on Sunday. My uneducated guess is that the governor and the county executive have put their two cents in about the difficulty of hosting a game on Sunday, and the league is waiting for the Pegulas to arrive to see the carnage first hand before moving the game. I suspect a Monday night date at the Ralph isn't in the cards, and that we will watch the Bills host the Jets either in Toronto or in Detroit on Monday. Cleveland would be cool because of its proximity, but I'm not sure if the Browns are home on Sunday.

Just throwing this out there, but with the next storm in they way I think moving the game to Monday is something they should consider. Helps with the practice issue, and the stadium (and lots) can't be cleared.

How about we settle on wiser? . Stay warm!