The Avenger

Will the site be active and at the same URL during the offseason?

I'd also like to hold off on making my keeper selections, but I believe the deadline for making choices should be set by our esteemed commish. Rich?

Those were the days.... I remember that we'd be lucky once in awhile and mom would let us eat cold Bocce pizza from the night before for breakfast as we watched Rocketship 7 - now THAT was the best! Sweet hat they're selling...

This assumes that people are actually interested enough in how their kids are educated to sit down and make an objective judgement on the quality of teaching, based on what they see and hear from their kids. If your kid is a problem, chances are you're not going to care enough to take part in any review, and if you do, you're probably going to say the teacher is terrible (why else would your kid be a problem? Couldn't possibly be a reflection on you..) Everybody in every non-contract job I know gets a merit increase on what their boss thinks about their performance. The boss may ask others for input or have some formal methodology, but ultimately the boss makes the call. Why should teachers be any different? I don't get to review my mailman and recommend what sort of merit pay he gets. In any event, teachers are generally workers under a contract - like bus drivers, cops, etc. None of those jobs has a merit system in place. If you drive a bus your raise is according to your contract - it's the same for you as it is for the guy in the next bus - that's the nature of the contract. I don't know why everyone feels that we should all have a say in everything when it's a techer but not for any other civil service job. I'm OK with some sort of merit system, but let's not limit it only to teachers if we're going to do it.

Dude, Schneck is awsome! He should have been league MVP! Stupid Shaun Alexander... Oh how low we've sunk when our joy in confined to talking about what a kicka$$ long snapper we have...

Your point is EXACTLY what I was arguing in the beginning of this thread - that much of what defines a good student has to do with their home life rather than their school. What I object to is people saying they have bad schools/bad teachers because they have a higher percentage of kids who come from challenging circumstances and generally won't do as well than kids who go to "good schools with good teachers". Simply put, if you acknowledge that there is a difference in the quality of students you get due to outside factors like economic class, etc., you also have to accept that how well these students do on standardized tests, etc. is a very poor way to judge the quality of the school/teacher. I also object to people saying that "there are dumb kids in the schools that drag everybody down and we should segregate these kids out". There are bad kids and kids who will never go on to get a PhD in physics, but who makes the decsion about who is a "good" kid and who is a "bad" kid? When is that determination made - 1st grade? 5th grade? High school? Who out there is willing to say that their kid isn't very bright and/or doesn't hold much promise and deserves less funding than other kids? They demand MORE money for their kids and blame the school/teacher for being bad if their kids doesn't do well...

I agree - you can't wait forever for someone to develop. By the same token, you also have to give him enough experience to show whether he's got it or not. In my mind it's not so much about years under contract as it is about games played. JP played nothing in his rookie year, and only saw 8 games last season. In my book he's halfway through his "rookie" year. Give him another 8-16 games and then decide his future, but don't keep the kid on the bench in some silly pursuit of a 6 win season under the guise of "winning now".

I think there should be a competition in camp, but you have to grade it on curve so to speak. Holcomb is a decent QB, but he's never going to be the answer. The thing he has going for him is experience - he's been there and done that. He's had some very good games, but also some real stinkers. Nobody really knows what we have in Losman at this point - he simply hasn't played enough. In that sense, I think a straight head to head competition favors the vet and his experience - Kelly may be better now because he has the experience and JP may be worse because he he doesn't. In that sense it's not really a fair head to head competition. I fear that the Bills are really in a vicious cycle - need a QB so we can win now leads to making short-sighted decisions at the position. Short-sighted decisions result in doing poorly on the field, which increases the pressure to win now. The only way to break this is to make the best long term decision or actually win now. That's what made the season so incredibly frustrating. I wanted to tear my hair out watching Kelly Holcomb play poorly against a hapless Jets team while JP sat on the bench. Did anyone realize that it was a completely meaningless game? Did nobody understand that this was just the opportunity the Bills needed to get JP on the field? Even if he played poorly it could be written off to gaining experience in an utterly meaningless game. Mularkey and Donahoe should have been fired immediately for even having Holcomb on the field under such circumstances, much less after he started to struggle in the first half. That sort of self-serving ineptitude convinced me that there was something very wrong with the Bills organization and that major changes were needed. If DJ sacrifices JP's development for ANOTHER year because he wants to finish the season with 6 wins this franchise has hit an all-time low. It's akin to blowing a first round pick on a bench warmer. That's when I'll really wonder why I put up with this team...

Just saw on cnnsi.com's Truth and Rumors that the NY Post said Levy wanted Jauron but Wilson wanted Jim Haslett. Funny how they didn't even interview him if they guy writing the checks doesn't even get to bring his guy in for a chat. Marv must have incredible power already to have pulled that one off... This is why media outside of WNY has no business pretending to know anything about the Bills... CNNSI

Let's not forget that nobody of any merit ever came from a low income family or ever did poorly in school. If you can identify who these kids are, based on what their parents do/earn and how well they perform on 1st grade tests we can avoid spending money on them and track them right to the factoy line or the fryolator - doing otherwise would be insane.

Funny how they can write a song about the guy but can't spell his name correctly....

Who is the camera operator for this PC - I'm getting dizzy watching. Even I take better video than this - and I'm terrible!

This can't be great - it was written by Jerry Sullivan - we should all disagree with it because he's a 2 bit hack who should be reporting the news rather than spouting his ideas. If he were really good he'd have a better job in a bigger market. /sarcasam

Not just Admiral Stockdale, but Phil Hartman playing Admiral Stockdale...

While you're never sure when someone will suddenly blosom as a coach and I'm certainly hoping for the best, it does scare me that Jauron has such a poor record, particularly of picking offensive coordinators. If there's one thing the Bills really need is to ge the most out of JP, Willis and Evans - I thik we have the talent to do well. The fact that Olson was the coach responsible for Harrington is horrific - the kid has some skills, has shown some flashes and yet they can't get anything out of him even when they surround him with top drfat picks at WR - that really doesn't say much about getting the most out of your young talent.

Bills Hire Dick Head Coach (repeat that 10 times as fast as you can...)

Mularkey broke his contract with the Bills by quitting, but the split was essentially mutual as the Bills got to keep the salary they owed him under the contract. The Bills don't own his rights because there is no longer a contract - Miami owes nothing.

There's a tremendous difference in asserting a right to conduct warrantless searches not explicitly barred by FISA, and unilaterally claiming a right to warrantless searches covered for years by FISA. If Bush wants warrantles searches, let him make the case why he needs it and if Congress agrees they can ammend FISA. I think it is very dangerous when a President claims war powers and then uses these powers to pick and chose which laws passed by Congress he does and does not have to abide by, particularly when it pertains to civil liberties.

As usual, the talking points of the right don't seem to give you all the facts before feeding you a sound bite that appears to score one for their side. Attorney General Jamie Gorelick said this in July of 1994. At the time, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) did not bar the use of warrantless physical searches, and Gorelick's statement was indeed fact. In her testimony she went on to say that the Clinton administration actually supported expanding FISA to cover physical searches (and indeed this expanded coverage occured in 1995). After expanding FISA in 1995 the Clinton administration never argued the right to condict warrantless physical searches. By contrast, Bush is asserting a right to conduct warrantless electronic searches, something barred by FISA for the last 27 years. He is directly stating that the legislated law of the land does not apply - something Gorelick did not do despite the "smoking gun" statement being circulated by conservative talking points. Few people have issue with the government's right to conduct searches that will keep us safe, however there must be guidelines. Bush says he needs to take action and getting warrants ahead of time severely hampers the ability to conduct valuable searches. That's not a valid argument - he has plenty of leeway to conduct searches and still remain within FISA (remember - that's the law). Understanding teh need to move swiftly, FISA provides for a "search now, get a warrant later" wherby you can actually do a wiretap now and get a valid warrant for the action up to 3 days afterwards, by a secret court dedicated to authorizing such things (you won't have to wait months for a day in court to make your case for a warrant). Failure to abide by FISA is a blatent disregard for the law of the land and shows and incredible arrogance by the current administration.

It's actually been modified from the original cover art...

That's what a 6 year playoff drought will get you, particularly when the only company you have on that stat is the Houston Texans... It may not be rational, but when you're tired of waiting, instant gratification becomes the name of the game...

Where does it say that the government is supposed to protect me by inspecting the meat I eat? Where does it say the government is supposed to make sure I don't die in a plane crash by creating an air traffic control system? Where does it say that the government is supposed to protect me by creating/funding the NIH and the CDC? Where does it say that there should be safety standards for automobiles? Guess the only role the government has in protecting me and making sure I don't die is to go root out WMDs in Iraq, huh? Yes sir - the government isn't supposed to protect me or help society - in a free market system the market will solve all the problem.

If you consider funding new drug research "wasting money"... Your adherence to Milton Friedman style free market economics is admirable - may you never get a rare form of liver cancer that might shake that faith in that all-powerful profit driven system.

Government handouts are a terrible thing...until the money goes to solving a disease YOU have that nobody else is willing to fund... I don't have a problem with the government helping to spur the development of drugs that won't make pharma billions - the free market system doesn't allow these drugs to be developed and it ultimately does benefit society the way it could. Besides, look at all the stupid things the government already spends money on...

But even averaged over a period of time it's a problem. If your wife gets 5 years of good kids, she's a great teacher. If she gets 4 years with good kids, she's a good teacher. With 3 years of good kids she's an average teacher. With 2 years she's a poor teacher. With one year or no years with good kids she's a bad teacher and should be fired (or at least not get any sort of merit pay). You know that she's the same teacher over that 5 year period whether she gets good kids or bad kids. Why should you tie her performance/pay to something over which she has no control - the quality of her students?