SectionC3

Your post reminded me of 51-3. That must have been a long day. Seriously, far be it for any fan of the Oakland Raiders to taunt another city about possibly losing its team. Why wish the pain you went through on others?

He whacked Garrard today like Garrard was his girlfriend. The kid had a lot working against him in the offseason. It looks like he turned a lot of it around, and if he did, good for him and congratulations.

You're entitled to your opinion. There are people who go through a lot more than Tom Brady - believe me, I'm mindful of that. Still, though, to wish suffering upon another just isn't the right thing to do.

I hate to see someone, anyone get hurt. It's not that it's Tom Brady; it's that it's a human being who probably has several months of grueling physical therapy ahead of him that certainly cannot be fun. That said, football season just got a lot more interesting. Your remark about "HERO Pollard number 49" was really, really funny.

I agree - great post, great bet, great passion for the Bills, but take the guaranteed money and pay part of the mortgage -

FWIW, I suspect that one, if not both, of Catalana's sources are players.

I did a little digging. Peters appears to be in the area. No idea what the reporting/contract status may be.

I heard the call, as I had GR on for a few minutes while Shredd & Ragan were in a break. Rarely do I listen to PM drive on GR, and the treatment of your call (and the Bledsoe call that occurred right around the time you were on) is a big reason why. One of the hosts thinks he's smarter than he really is, the other is horribly miscast as a radio personality and utterly unlistenable.

Maybe somebody else, perhaps Bill in NYC, can back me up on this but . . . when Eric King was here, that guy was an automatic first down every time he stepped on the field. Sitting in the stands provides a little bit of a different perspective than what you see on TV, and I swear every time I saw King come off of the sideline (I think he wore #29), I'd joke with my dad that we knew where the ball was going and by and large, we were right.

Maybe they just messed up. Kind of like with Mike Williams. They did, however, get it right when they re-upped with Peters a few years ago.

If this is true, and it may well be, one of two things happened: (1) Parker dropped the ball on behalf of Peters and should be fired; or (2) Peters knowingly signed a contract that he knew any move to left tackle would render unfavorable. If Peters is unhappy with the escalator and either he or his agent "knew" Peters would be moved to left tackle during the life of that agreement, one of only Peters or Parker is to blame. The reality of the situation is that Peters traded additional years on a contract (this one) for a greater immediate payment than his prior agreement would have provided. Had he "played out" his original contract, he'd be much closer to earning the extraordinary contract he desires. This was part of the risk in taking the additional "up front" money in this contract, and now he has to take his medicine. Too bad.

I think I posted this somewhere on the board before, but . . . Back in the day (approx. 1990-ish), one of the local media outlets did a study that found that Buffalo/Niagara would be a top-10 market if the Golden Horseshoe was included in market population totals. Canadian audiences aren't "rated," so all of the folks in Fort Erie, Niagara Falls, St. Catharines, Hamilton, etc. aren't included in the measure of Buffalo's market size. Combine the 1 million or so people in Erie and Niagara Counties with the roughly 1 million or so people in Monroe and Ontario Counties and those in the Horseshoe on this side of Hamilton and you're approaching a fairly substantial population total. The folks on the Canadian side can probably tweak the numbers, but my understanding is that Hamilton has a population of 600,000+, Niagara Falls is around 100,000, and St. Catharines is in the neighborhood of 100,000. Once TO is added to the mix, the Buffalo/Niagara market becomes, even 15 years after the study I mentioned, huge - but not necessarily for American TV purposes.

Sort of. The guilty plea can and will be used against him in the civil case; here, he wants to avoid any admission as to intoxication so he doesn't imperil his insurance coverage. This isn't a huge case since the extent of P's injuries (at least at this juncture) appear to be limited to 7 stitches in her leg. So, she'll have a scar, meet threshold and after some posturing and bluster settle the case. I don't think this case is worth very much - beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though, and since many potential jurors post on the board, I'm interested to hear what a scar of at most five inches on a fat, single, 20-something female's leg is worth. (Before anyone jumps all over me for the fat comment, scars are worth more on attractive females - it's a fact of life).

the title says it all

What I think you're saying is that he has no obligation to speak and it's in his best interests to keep his yap shut.

Your little birdie has no idea what he's talking about. Don't get your hopes up. This isn't happening.

Absolutely. The same logic is somewhat relevant to any conversation involving a national sales tax. One of the Steve Forbes plans that was floated some years back was a flat tax with no deductions. Not a very good idea for, say, middle class homeowners, people with kids, those in their mid-20s with student loans (who make less than $62,000), etc. Even if certain deductions under a flat tax are available, the critical question is where the threshold lies. In other words, if the flat tax threshold is 20%, it's possible that the federal tax liability for some working class could actually increase. (I'll plead a little ignorance here - I don't know what the current low brackets are.) Truly problematic, though, is the reduction for those on the higher end of the scale. If your income is sufficient to allow you to reach one of the graduated steps where you're paying in the vicinity of 30%, you're getting a huge reduction and reaping a huge benefit if your liability for monies at what are now higher graduated steps is reduced to 20%. How is that lost tax revenue made up? Possibly through taxpayers in the lower to mid brackets who lose some deduction benefits. Or, if you're George W. Bush, you just borrow more money from China. In other words, typical of other Republican red herrings (let's talk about gay marriage instead of addressing important national security issues, like where is Osama bin Laden, or why did we start a war with a country that faked having chemical weapons to keep the real tyrant [iran] at bay and therefore allow that tyrant to bluster about nuclear weapons, send shivers through traders of a certain dinosaur-based speculative commodity and wreak havoc with our economy!!), the flat tax is, plain and simple, just another ill-conceived idea.

Because a flat tax benefits those like Ralph and screws what I suspect is the majority of the people who read this board. All of this moving talk is misguided. If the Bills are going anywhere, it's Toronto. It's a rich, rabid and virgin market. LA has had several teams (Rams, Chargers and Raiders) and lost them all. People in LA don't care about the NFL - there's too much else to do. The most likely team to move to LA is the Raiders. Toronto, by virtue of the "series" is Bills territory. No team is going there except the Bills, and if the Bills go anywhere it will be Toronto.

There have been more incidents that those referenced in the PFW article. In other totally unrelated news, we sure have a lot of cornerbacks on the roster now.

"Its" and "interpretation" are my words of the day. Not that anyone should be busting your *ss given that it IS exam time in law school. (Which begs the question: why are you fooling around on twobillsdrive? But, I digress . . . . ) From one young punk hustling a paycheck in the legal system to another hoping to do the same, my advice is to take it easy on dispensing the legal knowledge for a couple of years. The more you know, the more you realize you don't know. I did the law review, high honors, published, clerkship thing and and sometimes wonder how I faked my way through it (and continue to fake my way through it five years later). The lesson I learned (more often than not the hard way) was to keep my mouth shut unless absolutely necessary.

I have no idea who Connor Byrne is. I have no idea what you are speaking of relative to any admission. I believe the original statement I made was something to the effect of "It is my understanding that Ashton Youbouty has disappointed us." Cryptic, indeed.

All in all has Youbouty shown enough to indicate he probably will be a starter one day? Nope not yet. However, has he disappointed so much that he clearly should not let the door hit him on the way out? No to this uninformed view as well. The Bills are too shallow in depth at CB to throw anyone off the bus. Further, what the hard-hearted or vacuous among us might dismiss simply as excuses, rather than excuses there are legit reasons for his play which while they do not forgive him, one would be silly to ignore them. Further, though he has not won a position at all with his play, he has shown some good things in episodes that also make it premature for us to panic and dismiss him. I believe I am rather informed.

It is my understanding that Ashton Youbouty has disappointed us. Any chance this guy sees the door sometime soon?

St. Kitts is like Batavia. When you're in Batavia, you're not in Buffalo OR Rochester. Nothing against Batavia, b/c it is a nice town, and a very livable place.

If they "fudged" that kick on a 6 yard spot the placement actually would have been moved from 7 3/4 yards behind the LOS to 6 yards. In the event shenanigans like this were attempted, there would have been two problems. First, the ball is typically placed at about 7 3/4 yards because the snap, if exectued properly, will often result in the holder catching the ball with the laces facing forward and therefore allow the holder to avoid spinning the ball after placement to ensure proper lace direction. I have no idea if a 6 yard placement would provide that advantage. Second, with the 6 yard placement, the ball would have had to have been kicked at a higher than normal trajectory to clear the LOS. That trajectory, assuming the kick wasn't batted back at Lindell, would have caused the ball to hang in the air longer and created a greater opportunity for the wind to impact the kick. Given the conditions on Sunday, a higher trajectory would have been quite unfavorable. That said, I totaly agree the game managment left a little bit to be desired on the last series, and particularly on the last offensive play. Too much confusion prior to the last play - hate to see the season decided on a chaotic series like that.