MattM

I'll go back and look after the game--thanks

Go watch it--I've got it on DVR and watched it 3 times. Utter crap call, too, on the last series

Anyone else see that obvious hands to the face by the Cheats* on that Brady TD? They'd call that all day, every day on us....

http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/eppa.htm Nor, as per the link above, do they appear to be allowed under Federal law (a couple of non-applicable exceptions). There's the answer I was looking for above. Too bad, because it might have helped solve the League's perception problem on this issue.

Always glad to be of service, although you got the last part wrong--I thought I made it pretty clear that I have no idea whether the science behind lie detection is settled or not. What's really kind of funny is that the guy with perhaps the most consistently cantankerous, negative, sarcastic view on this board doesn't buy into a negative view of human nature that presupposes a need for such corruption controls. I, at least, find that kind of funny. I also hope that you noticed that I was one of the few who supported your Gary Kubiak flier--it's to bad that the Bills don't seem to be listening to you/us on that one! No idea either way. That was one of the questions that I had myself.

Very simply questions about bribery or outside interference with their judgment of any kind, for ex., blackmail. Push works as well as pull, as in sending a nice looking young woman to the hotel bar the night before the game and Mr. Ref is paid a visit the next morning along the lines of "see these pictures of your nice, happy family. Would be a shame if anything happened to it." If these guys can periodically pass those tests, and assuming the science behind the tests is sound, then I think that would help the integrity of the game. As others have noted here and elsewhere, the game is reffed by human beings--human beings can be bribed or extorted. The League should put in place measures to prevent that, to the extent possible, particularly after similar things have happened in other leagues. I'd personally feel a little better about the game if such measures were possible and used. Don't personally know enough about the science of lie detection to know if there would be any real value in it (and if the obstacles to it, such as privacy rights issues and union objections, could be overcome), but if there was, I would think it might be worth the League's while to consider it, particularly if they and their owners have nothing to hide. Were the idea floated, it might be interesting to see who objects (on the League/owner side, that is--I could understand why the refs might object simply on principle). I think any reasonable person would agree that the League's reputation took a large beating in Dallas this weekend and the playoffs are only partially over. One more similar incident (and we all know both New England* and Dallas play this weekend) and this kind of trouble could actually get some legs, rather than die down like it usually does. I disagree--to cover off the issue I'm concerned with, corruption, full time officials won't work, not unless you pay them a helluva lot more than you're discussing there. Incompetence is a whole other separate matter.

You are probably correct, but in some cases workers (even unionized ones) are subject to things like drug tests, although in most or all of those cases there may be at least a sheen of "safety" as the rationale for those tests. I do also recall a colleague a number of years ago (at the police dept of all places) talking about needing to pass a lie detector test on drug use and ethics for a job in the securities industry--as it turned out, he had previously dealt coke so failed the tests (true story).

After the latest officiating fiasco which looks more than a little shady (multiple calls and no calls going one way late in a game helping a popular team to victory, such perception not helped by the "party bus" incident), is it feasible or desirable for the League to require their officials to submit to periodic lie detector tests? Could the League condition employment on agreeing to take such tests? Not a labor lawyer (nor do I play one on TV), so I don't know the answer, but do think it might go a long way towards placating some folks who can't help but think something untoward is going on based on what they're seeing with their own eyes. My father of all people recently raised this possibility. He's watched football longer than the Bills have been around and seemed to think it would be a good idea. If that's possible, how would fans go about demanding it, as personally, I think it would indeed be a good idea.

I love how the picture the BS article uses shows clearly that the Lions receiver was being tackled well before the ball got there. I don't think I've seen a worse call in a loooonnnngg time (and I watch most of the Patriots*' games!)

I repeat my point to you and WEO--the Times breaks stories that are negative to liberals and Democrats, not just reports on them (which they also do, including on the administrations scandals), ie., their investigative journalism creates those stories which were previously unknown by the public or the authorities. I've given several examples and could give more. Name me a single one that a Murdoch publication (be it Fox News, the NY Post or the WSJ more recently) has EVER broken on a conservative figure. The Grimm stuff is simply reporting on an existing investigation that is already news--they have no choice but to report it. The Post didn't find themselves and publish Grimm's ethical, tax or bullying problems (he may be one of the biggest dirtbags to ever serve in Congress), they merely reported on them. The Times, on the other hand, were the ones who actually did the work to determine that Richard Blumenthal was claiming to be a Vietnam vet (by obtaining video of his speeches making this claim) when all he really was was a spoiled little rich kid who avoided real service in 'Nam by serving in the Guard (sound familiar?) and then lied about it later. They did this by looking into his service record and then writing about it, nearly costing the Democrats the Conn. Senate seat he ultimately won nonetheless (largely because his opponent, Linda McMahon, was more reprehensible than he was). They recently did the same thing in the case of Montana Senator found to have plagiarized his scholarship in grad school--that guy actually dropped out of the race and probably actually DID cost the Dems the seat. Same with the other stories above on Rangel, Menendez and Sharpton--they connected the dots others had not connected and published the results before anyone else did. Again, care to name ANY time a Murdoch publication has done this? I've had that bet for years with buddies and found no takers.... At the risk of verging into PPP territory (a most foul and pestilent place I try not to visit), your note on scandal coverage reminded me of something. Take a look at this and tell me whose administration is more corrupt--to my eyes it's not even close by miles. If you disagree, tell me what they missed there about the Obama administration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States

For those crowing about the Times and its ethics and political slant, it's actually one of the few remaining investigative papers left and they are pretty non-partisan in their news (vs editorial, which is indeed quite liberal) targets. They've broken (not just reported, but broken) a pretty large number of bad news stories for Dmocrats, including the Blumenthal stolen valor case, Charlie Rangel's tax problems, Bob Menedez's ethics problems and recently Al Sharpton's tax problems. When the Murdoch organization does the same for a conservative/Republican it will be their first. I've had that bet with several conservative friends for years and have had no takers to date....

As others have pointed out, that's just a wasteful strategy that has no bearing in reality. Just for starters, so after two or three years you're bringing multiple day one picks into camp to try to find a QB. How do you split the reps? How do you develop chemistry between your main QB and receivers? How do you have any continuity in your blocking and protection schemes? How do you handle the psychological aspects of your young QBs' development if they're always looking over their shoulder for a competitor? It just doesn't work that way in real life, plain and simple. Sounds nice, considering how important the position is, but it just can't work that way for all of the reasons folks have given (plus the fact also that by doing this, you'd also be thinning out the talent on the rest of your team by wasting high picks on players many of who, by definition since there can only be one QB, will never see the field).

The fact that ESPN had a special on his career, including quotes in memorial to him from so many people almost immediately after he died tells me that they knew this was coming for a while. Very sad news all, as like him or hate him, he was truly unique and a trailblazer and by all accounts I've read, a great guy. Anyone else notice how Chris Berman looked in relaying the news, in particular how his eyes and eye wrinkles were so pronouncedly different from the rest of his much smoother makeup job? Either I've never noticed that before, or Boomer had cried his eye makeup off before going on the air. I'd wager it's the latter and I can't really blame him, as I'm sure they knew each other well.

How is it that the line got worse with largely the same personnel (which I agree it did)? Factors to my mind included: Marrone not starting Urbik, a serviceable player in prior years, until midway through the season Moving Pears from RT to RG--again, that was likely Marrone's call and not Whaley's Glenn missing TC with an injury Lack of continuity in TC, due to things like said injury C. Williams' injury--never really saw how he could perform, since he missed about 90% of the year Missing on Koundijo and (to a lesser extent) Richardson--somewhat made up for in Henderson, who has talent, but was only a rookie As you'll see, much of that was on Marrone or bad injury luck. As you also acknowledge, Whaley did try to address the OL in FA and the draft, so it's not like it was ignored or something. I swear, some people here seem to get a bug up their arse about something and close their eyes to all logic or counterpoints (witness the OP in this thread for a great example--I'd almost swear that one or both of EJ and Whaley slept with his wife.)

Remember, however, that Glenn also missed all of TC with a mystery injury, so I'd cut him some slack, personally.

The O P loves to rant on about EJ and Whaley's selection of him, but I don't think I've ever heard him say who Whaley, in his two years of control of the club, should have either drafted or gone after in FA. It's almost as is the OP thinks franchise QBs grow on trees and are there for the picking.

I believe that Marrone shares an agent (Jimmy Sexton) with Rex Ryan, so his agent "obviously" had an in/relationship with the Jets. This should be investigated. If proven right, we could kill two birds with one stone--get compensation from the Jets and be rid of Marrone. If that's not a "win/win", I don't know what is.

I thought I read something in the last day or two showing them barely under the cap next year?

I'm liking what I'm seeing so far from Kubiak's O, especially considering things like losing Ray a Rice and their O-line reshuffle. I'm torn, however--I want the Ravens to win, but I'd prefer we can interview Kubiak this week. What to do?

Or so it's said now, perhaps to protect those who negotiated it. Kind of hard to believe considering (a) Marrone's lack of a prior HC track record in the NFL nor was there a huge demand for his services as NFL HC, (ie. a bidding war) IIRC and (b) there are only 32 of these very sought after jobs (see point (a) immediately above). I'm with the FR above--I'm not an NFL contracts expert, but I do know contracts, and you want to set up the right incentives, which this contract doesn't do. In fact, for reasons stated elsewhere, it almost serves to push Marrone out the door, without any offset for the Bills even if he finds better employment elsewhere. When thinking it through, I would have to agree that the Bills (and whoever negotiated this agreement) got played.

Or TP gave Marrone the option to play it this way, ie, you're not coaching here next year, but you can play it how you want it, and then Marrone had to determine which was worse for him, seen as quitting on his team or being fired. It wouldn't surprise me if this is what happened.

Going fwd, the D gets Hughes (and maybe Searcy) and Kiko back, while the O gets a FA QB and G and the first 2 picks is my best guess

I'd be happy with Kubiak and Schwartz, but not sure Schwartz would stick around if he doesn't get the HC gig. I could also live with Ryan as DC in such a case (and assuming he doesn't go to TV as has been rumored).

You can't do that to us--if you start you have to finish. It's a rule.

It certainly gives at least some credence to the idea that he started Orton in a meaningless game to try to win it to pad his resume rather than see what the potential QB of the future could do. Not saying that's what happened, but it is certainly possible. Personally, I think the other reason he didn't start EJ is that he would have looked the fool if EJ miraculously lit it up against the Cheats*....