OCinBuffalo

And this doesn't qualify as hearsay? How about speculation? The only thing we have to go on that actually counts is: play on the field. By all accounts McGahee had the potential to be a HOFer. Walter Payton was a HOFer. Somehow I don't see, and nobody has reported, McGahee putting in the same off-season as Payton Moreover, I don't see McGahee producing on the field like an all-pro or HOFer. If he is truly as "great" as you say he is, then, like how come he doesn't work or act like every other great player or play like every other great player? Look I bought his jersey because I loved his story, but please understand the giant let down that he really is doesn't make us feel like looking at him as "great" any time soon. Edit: don't just take my word for it. Go and read the Ravens message boards. There are threads there that are identical to ours 2-3 years ago.

Reading through this thread, I think you missed the point: We ALL felt the same way you did when he was drafted, and we ALL felt great when he finally started playing and especially owning the Dolfags with that stiff arm. I don't think anybody here is arguing that. What I can't understand is: after all of that work and trouble to get back to, or close to, the level he was at the U, how can he waste it all now by being lazy, not studying his playbook, and not working with his team-->the team that gave him his shot, or the team that spent big $$$ and 3 draft picks on him? I see the comeback as separate from what he has done since. It's like 2 different players. None of us get how a guy with that kind of story could possibly get all the way back, only to half-ass it once he's there.

Beat me to it....

Ha that game was so awesome, nobody in my section could believe they simply didn't run for that one yard. We were laughing all the way back to the lot. All I kept thinking was: he probably didn't know the short yardage plays, or, they weren't sure if he did. McLazee got severely stuck most of the first half as well. Then again, why bring facts into this...

Cool, now I get to drop the other .5 of my original post, and this way I don't get crap for being too long. Edit: you are right about the messenger, but his message: bad writing, salacious BS, no editor, etc. I saw as likely correct. However, as I said, the market punishes the weak, so who knows, perhaps bloggers will eventually have to include all of those things, bloggers will combine their efforts, and we will have a newspaper all over again. Stranger things have happened. It's not as simple as the NY Times fiasco parade, but, that's generally what I see happening. It's also interesting to me that no one takes a look at the recent quality of journalism for answers in all this--->CBS News and the NY Times certainly aren't helping. Without quality, why should I concern myself with whether newsrooms have 20 or 200 people in them? Certainly the legions of people at both those organizations haven't prevented the massive failures they have exhibited lately, and we're talking the front page here. The fact is that bloggers are the ones who did the real journalism to uncover the facts about all of the faulty stories produced by the "journalists" at these organizations. Why should we feel bad for a profession/business model that can't live by its own standards, yet purports to be the "protector of the people" and claims to force everyone else to live up to theirs? What happened to the professional sports writers with the Duke lacrosse case, did they get crowded out by Nancy Grace? If I was a journalist, I'd want to get ahead of this trend, start my own site, and provide in depth content to whoever wanted to buy it, similar to what Scouts Inc. or Fanation did. Every other profession has gone through this already, now it's journalism's turn. I dunno, but something like this is where this is going, and nobody knows better than the journalists themselves how to deal with it. If blogging is where things are headed, why don't the best journalists simply become the best bloggers and charge other websites for their content? It shouldn't be hard. After all, if we accept their schooling, training and writing ability as absolute, it should be relatively easy for them to rise to the top.

You are right about the news we get. But I think we can both agree that analysis is sorely lacking out there, unless perhaps you like KC Joyner's struggling? There was an interesting HBO Sports special a few months back regarding all of this. One segment in particular focused on bloggers vs. journalists. The journalist made the point that blogging was killing the profession of writing, because anybody can do it. He also said that it would lower the standards of good writing. The journalist then publicly abused the blogger they had on, and with good reason. His blog was ridiculous, but, after a while you got the sense that he wanted the J-school guy to come at him. Why? Because it's still all about the traffic, and now he gets a new stream to his site. I came away from it thinking what I did before I saw it, bloggers tend to be wise-asses and know a little about the game, journalists tend to be serious and know much more about the game, but both have a place somewhere on the internet. I'm just not certain where, and I don't think many others are either. The discussion didn't resolve how quality sports writers make the transition to the reality that is the internet. The point everyone missed is the blogger wins by showing up. He got on HBO, sitting on the same stage with the journalist, getting abused but still getting equal status. Does he belong there? Perhaps not, but the fact that he was there says all we need to know. The journalist can yell all he wants, but somebody paid to know what the blogger had to say, however silly. People are supposed to want to know what journalists have to say, but somehow bloggers are gaining that status as well. Why? Possibly because Bloggers are in charge of their own business, and if they don't respond to the market, it will punish them immediately? The same cannot be said about journalists, who can only be fired by their bosses, not us. People don't like it when somebody gets a free pass on sucking, because their boss has an agenda--->NY Times, and why their stock has gone into the toilet. Lame example for sure, but not too far off the mark in terms of the public's perception of the media right now.

Pancakes Incorporated "We have the dough"<--works both ways, teehee.

Got to use Firefox 3's new "Zoom In" feature. Nice. The feature and the wannabe-wife.

Figure of speech... but there have been some thread where you guys come out in full force. Cripes, we had a lawyer contest last week, and that was fun.

So let me get this straight: The people of Pennsylvania were stupid when they voted for Hillary, but they will suddenly be smart if they vote for Obama in the general? Or is it: the people were smart for voting for Hillary by 10 points and not Obama, and stupid if they vote for McCain and never vote for Obama in either race, but regardless, it won't be Rendell's fault? I wonder if anybody has bothered telling them whether they are supposed to be smart or stupid yet? FTW! The rampant hypocrisy on the far-left astounds me at times. This is why I like real Democrats and not socialist fools. I also like being able to tell the difference.

1. Que? What in the heck makes you think his intended audience was those kids? Where did you get that silly idea? He paid no price, none at all. Those kids were going to vote 99% Obama anyway. What he got was: national media coverage and a lasting image(kool-aid drinkers = Obamaton kids) of making Obama supporters seem lightweight, young, inexperienced in politics...wait....kinda like your response. Score anther for Rendell....and nothing for you. 2. Who cares about Farrakan? Show me the #s. Where in the world did you think that Farrakhan would matter anywhere, any time? This is a minor point and nothing compared to Obama's bashing of Hillary on her votes on the Iraq war. Please. Rendell paid no price and once again, his intended audience, his state, gets an image of Obama = Farratool. This is politics 101. Last time I checked Hillary smoked Obama in PA. Remind me what price Rendell paid again? Link here. Wrong again, boy this is getting to be a habit with you, huh? Oh, and explain how I am deluding myself? Does anybody care, besides you(edit: I forgot about Sean Hannity, interesting company you keep ), right now that Faratool was linked to Obama? Is McCain saying that? No and No. Deluded indeed. 3. Again, with all due respect for Tim Russert, Rendell used him to obtain his goal. He paid no price, got free airtime to say that Obama wasn't ready, and that's the thing that will stick in people's minds, not Russert's canard = "what if the pres. dies", etc., and delivered his state for Hillary by 10 friggin points. The trap is: the more people talk about it, the more the words "Obama isn't ready" get repeated. Get it? I'm sorry, but now this is simply kicking you when you're down and I won't bother. The major point you are missing: Ed Rendell has enough political capital to fill 10 Walmarts, and he can use any of it any time because it all belongs to him. He earned it, and there are no strings attached. He can spend it anyway he likes, and he will probably run for, and be, President some day. Nobody in the entire Democratic pantheon is better suited, including Obama and Hillary. Thinking that he "paid the price" with the MSNBC comment, or any of the comments you pointed out, or that his actions aren't 100% intentional, is wildly naive. In fact, it was Rendell's activity that won Hillary the last 7-8 major states, y'know, the ones that are actually going to matter in Nov.? How much do you wanna bet there's a seat at the table for Rendell if Hillary runs in 2012? How much do you wanna bet that nobody Fs with Rendell ever in the Democratic party? Edit: how much do you wanna bet that if Obama wins and if Rendell decides he wants a cabinet position, Obama has to give it to him? Perhaps I should add "naive" to the list and take away hypocritical? Can't say dumbass, because you are clearly ignorant of the game here, not stupid<--a choice. And I have no idea if you are a socialist, but I am sure the one I caught is.

Let's take these in order: 1. Kool aid: Are you telling me that there isn't a whole lot of kool-aid being passed out by Obama people? I'm talking method here not Obama's ideas. The whole primary was about soaring ideals with no explanation of how things would be accomplished. I'm not saying that Obama won't have solutions, or that he didn't have them all along, or that some things require more work, none of that, so don't even start. However, his campaign style in the primary was clearly "kool-aid drinking" by anybody's definition. So again, Rendell tells the truth. Rendell 1, you 0. 2. Who cares what anybody says about Farrakhan? As if he cares what he says about anybody else? Seriously? Who cares about him at all? The man pushes himself on everyone, in an effort to make $$$, Obama is just one more sucker who got caught up, why should I hold that against him? Rendell was merely saying that Faradork met with Obama, and this is a political race, so why can't he do what politicians do? As if Obama didn't do the very same thing? Rendell 2, you 0 Edit, and I'm going to subtract a point for you being hypocritical. Rendell 2, you -1. 3. "Obama VP". Well, looking at the very effective ads McCain has run lately, and the fact that this is now anybody's game when there's no way in hell that should be happening, who looks like the bigger fool right now? Rendell or you? A whole lot of people agree that Obama isn't ready to be president. Are you saying that they are all "shooting themselves in the foot" too? Rendell 3, you -1. Edit: and here, here's an "unbiased" link, because it comes from CNN , that proves it CNN poll Looks to me like all Rendell has been doing is being the effective pol he is, and that's because he's more likely to deal with things as they are, instead of letting his ideology cloud his views, and operate based on the way things "should be" or the way he wished or liked them to be. It's par for the course. The MSNBC coverage was embarrassing, any reasonable person knows it, that's why their ratings are where they are, and Rendell simply stated the obvious.

Shhhh! Don't ruin the fun! The Obamaton is going to explain to us how Rendell doesn't have a record of working with all sides and getting things done, primarily because he starts with the truth and moves on from there. Of course, if PA goes for Obama, she'll have nothing but good things to say about Rendell. /sarcasm I knew I would catch at least one dumbass, hypocritical, socialist hack in this one. Let's see if we get more.

Ignorance: Now's that's change we can believe in!

Thank you Lori, for proving my earlier point. I guarantee we would never know that, especially not in the detail you have laid out. Just one more example of the "big team" that is TSW. Still not sure how ESPN's online presence competes with this kind of post, or the other stuff people routinely do here. I don't claim to be a media expert, but I am re: Internet business models. I don't see how ESPN isn't trying to move everything they have into content(as they seem to be, based on what you posted), the $$$ is there all day. Insider is a stupid, flailing attempt, and has already been eclipsed by sites like this one, Football Outsiders, etc. Traffic is king, followed by targeted marketing campaigns. If they did a simple login with some basic demographics, they could triple their ad revenue by targeting ads and tailoring campaigns. Perhaps they thought that's what they were getting with Insider? Whoever told them that was the way to go doesn't know the job. You don't expand your market by limiting content, you do the exact opposite, unless your market won't expand further. It's like being happy getting a nickel-->Insider, when you could get a dollar-->WebMd. In all cases, content = traffic. And posting nonsense content just kills you/puts you in ad contract hell. So yeah, based on what I have seen from them, they better invest in some content people. Perhaps our new friend Tim here is an example of that effort.

Agreed. The exception that proves the rule? Or, maybe Tim just likes to do his job properly. Didn't he say he was a WNY guy? Jaworski, and maybe soon to be Tim here, the only NFL analysis worth bothering with?

That, unfortunately, makes sense. And yes, things have gone down in some areas(endless O line/D line debate) and gotten better in others(pre-draft player analysis). The point is: things will get better. They will because of the nature of this media, guys like you will ensure it sooner or later, by posting what you have been posting lately = "hey a holes, lets pick it up, this is boring and stupid." On the flip side, what are the chances of things getting better at ESPN any time soon? Who gets better first? Who's going to do a better job analyzing the Bills, the AFC East, AFC or NFL this season? My money's on TSW.

First off, thanks for doing the blogs. I know I'm not alone when I say we are looking forward to your work, because it has the potential to be worth our time, and we might actually learn something. If that is the case, you will enjoy huge support from us. This is a looooong post, but you asked for opinions and mine is multifaceted. I know Sullivan is still in China, because WGR interviewed him there yesterday. So that's his excuse. It was a late game, followed by a day off, etc., is probably the other excuse. I also know that WGR has a clear and consistent bias against the Bills thanks to Mike Schopp(I really couldn't care less how he spells his name). He also blatantly confirmed that bias again, yesterday. The only reason I was listening was to see if there was an update on Langston Walker, they usually get those kinds of things first. The other guys at WGR are ok, but it's beyond obvious that they have been influenced by this lame attempt to deemphasize the Bills in favor of the Sabres. So, there's rarely anything useful or interesting coming from WGR, unless you are talking about FA signings at 1 in the morning, or similar factoids. Hardly any media outlet, ESPN included, is actually doing useful analysis anymore. In fact, the only guy worth listening to is Ron Jaworski, because he actually watches the games, and does real analysis. Remember that? We used to get it from the print media all the time. And I am not referring to KC Joyner's inability to do proper statistical analysis. Reading what that guy writes is hysterical, watching him struggle with basic stats concepts provides me with a ton of entertainment, but I don't learn anything about football. The simple fact is: We have to come here to get what we want, because few in the media are doing their job properly. There are a hell of a lot of people here who know the game, spend serious time on their posts, watch hours of film, and actually bring a ton of insight, because they bring their real job skills and/or real life experiences to bear. Examples: if there is a new offensive set or package, then those of us who know the game discuss it in detail, if there is an injury we have 10 physicians telling us what it means. If there is a contract issue, same thing with lawyers. If we have a need for sound statistical analysis, this guy named Dibs shows up and kills it. There are many, many more, and Lori is better than 90% of the reporters out there. You just have to know who they are, and ignore the nonsense. Hell, I even did a live training camp report the first couple of days using my smartphone. IMO, it was marginal, but next year I plan to do a much better job, because I enjoy it. I will do it because I can, because I always feel like I "owe" for getting all this good info here, and a live report is what I always wanted when I was an out-of-state Bills fan. Sorry if it pisses reporters off, but we are simply doing what we want. If you guys did what we want, we wouldn't have to, and we might even pay you for it. There is a huge upside to having more than one voice, as there is in the paper, discussing a particular aspect of the game. I guarantee that the average TSW poster knows more than they knew when they first got here, and I also guarantee that they know more about football, the NFL, and certainly the Bills than the average reporter, and certainly more than most of the "analysts" on TV. How do I know? Because the reporters come here to learn things themselves. Clumping Platelets' salary cap analysis has been used by reporters on multiple occasions. And it's not just local guys, I know for a fact that others come here as well. Why do I need to read what some reporter has to say when I can get a much better analysis here, and chances are that all I'm going to get from said reporter is a regurgitation of what's here anyway, regardless of what city paper that reporter works for? Chris Brown is the only reporter that we tend to respect, but we know that he's on a bit of leash. You think reporters in Toronto will know more about the Bills than we do here? Ever? My opinion is therefore: we don't care, so why should you? You'd better get your own house at ESPN in order before you worry about others. We want what we want, and if you guys don't give it to us, we get it ourselves. I'm not sure, but it seems you/they can't compete with us, not because we are better individually, but because we are better as a team, and there are 100s of good posters here, not 1 or 2 guys. You should see what draft time is like around here. Besides, anything you guys do well is co-opted and linked here within minutes. It will be discussed, and 50-100 posts later it's value will be determined, and it's info assimilated, thereby rendering any need to buy a paper useless. We only get the basic facts from the media, and rarely pay attention to their analysis, because it's almost always wrong. Example: Miami Dolphins picked to go to the SB two years ago, and then picked to be #2 in the division last year. Idiotic. Do you really think I'm going to sign up for ESPN Insider for that, or Mel Kiper, or any of it? All it took was some basic analysis of their secondary and O line, and the fact that they had no QB. The film that proved they were a joke is readily available on the NFL Network site. Moronic projections like that are why we say ESPN has a big market bias. Why in the hell else do you keep saying that the Jets, Dolphins, Cardinals, 49ers, Texans and Raiders are going to be good every year, for the last 5, when they have all blatantly sucked, but you ignore teams like the Jags, Packers and Chargers?(notice how I leave my team out? it's called being objective ) The fact is that the media needs to change it's business model and/or get it's ex-player "analysts" in the film room. I see something along the lines of facilitating discussion, by a guy who knows the game, has proper communication skills, and some sense of analytical ability, being much more well received than a "the (insert NFL team here) training camp report, complete with interviews of athletes spewing cliches". You guys are missing the point and seem enamored with the players and your access to them more than you should be. No matter how much the athletes think of themselves, we still root for what's on the helmet much more than the back of the jersey, and we want to see teamwork and execution much more than we care what TO or Brett Favre has to say. You guys don't seem to get that, and you make the mistake of getting caught up in the National Enquirer model, rather than elevating your reporting to get us the real story, like SI used to do. Perhaps the popularity of Fantasy has made you guys forget that the vast majority of people in this country can do more than one thing at a time? In this case, root for their fantasy team and their real team, at the same time? Perhaps it's time to speak to the majority instead of the lowest common denominator If you haven't noticed, those folks can't afford to buy tickets to games anymore anyway. This started by letting Terry Bradshaw be on TV. It ends with all of us watching games using internet feeds with the volume off and a chat room going. Unless you guys stop dumbing down your coverage to Terry and Marshall Faulk's level, that is precisely what will happen.

It's not that the rest of us don't think we'll need a name, it's that the rest of us don't want to feed the O Line/D Line agenda people another thread where we have to remind them that 11 people play on a side, not 4 DL or 5 OL, and that football, more so than any other sport, is a team game. And we REALLY don't want to remind them that without a good QB and/or RB the D line and O line barely matter at all-->even with the recent object lesson in what happens to the Colts entire team when Manning isn't in there. They will still try to say that the lines are more important, because of Denver, while ignoring that Denver cheats, and has been reprimanded by the league, and that Denver plays in the AFC West(whose entire teams, not just their lines, have generally sucked for the last 10 years), which auto-generates 4-5 wins for them each year. Wait till we play the AFC West this year, we'll look like we have awesome lines regardless of our QB and RB as well. Besides, this line doesn't have its own personality yet. We need to see how they do some things, and we need to see them in the regular season, so that the name fits. You are right, there will be a name by mid season. I bet if you brought this thread back after the 4th game, you'd probably get better responses.

I just got done, anything interesting happening with this game?

You saw those NFL.com stats too, huh? I was wondering how that happened. Link here Perhaps they are trying to handicap Edwards a little and clean up in Vegas on him?

A few one sentence observations: Regarding our ball-hawking D, and efficient O: getting one or two turnovers in a single game can be blamed on the opponent's O; a +5 turnover ratio over 3 games, including the Steelers and Colts, cannot. Oh, and the D lead the league in INTs and are about 15-16th ranked overall = significant improvement. Our starting D has given up one(1) TD to the opponents starting O in three games, and that was in the first game. All that matters is: we were all sick to death when we thought Walker was seriously hurt. OTOH, we might have good depth at O line, in terms of talent, but we certainly don't in terms of experience. Sometimes talent is enough, sometimes it's not. All season, O line depth will be a minor annoyance at best, or a serious problem at worst, and we don't know which right now.

As if the rise of Ireland is because of peace and not severely reduced capital gains taxes, and other intelligent(and flexible) tax policies. Of course, European socialists and Keynsian apologists act like Ireland doesn't exist, and isn't smoking them economically. "Make the bad man stop!" We haven't had the same meteoric rise in growth because we have been less like Ireland, not more. Supply-side was a response, a reaction, to the mess that was Jimmy Carter's, and his Keynsian Harvard professor advisers', "wage and price control" utopia. We had to do something drastic about fixing the real stagflation we were really encountering, right then, and Reagan did. The supply side policy saved our asses, those are the facts, and they are undeniable. Of course the downside was larger deficits and a built in equities bubble(which burst in 87), but at the time that was clearly a better choice than 17-20% unemployment and 25-7% interest rates. I have always looked at strict Supply Side policy as a solution to a problem, and once that problem is solved, it's time to get back to the markets handling themselves, and therefore it's time to cut government spending, not taxes. The problem I see is that it's easier for politicians to cut taxes rather than cut spending. Spending is the real enemy here, because it creates the very instability we are talking about = basing your business on the government instead of the market is a terrible idea(that should be obvious). It also creates inflation by reducing competition and therefore artificially raising prices(um, Lockheed Martin is doing health care? don't they make airplanes?) The point is: Clinton took over and was able to start at around 0, do a good job, and get to 10. Reagan took over and had to get from -15 to about 2 in his first term. The in-between Bush 1 presidency was a transition and was inevitably going to have an economic downturn because of the Iraq nonsense. None of this means that it makes sense to "always raise taxes" or "always cut taxes". What does make sense is to use Fiscal policy in a more flexible manner, like Ireland. That cannot be done until the tax code is simplified, which is why I support a flat tax. What does make sense is to cut government spending and allow markets to work. Government interference in a market, both positive(spending) and negative(taxes), is the reason market equilibrium is being questioned. You can't say that markets are inherently unstable as a rule when the government is consistently messing with them. You want to prove that markets are inherently unstable, get the government out of them for 10 years and see what happens.

The responses were so telling about the affected socialists that support Obama. They don't see Ed Rendell for what he is: a very smart guy who speaks the truth more than any other pol I have seen. Nah, they think he's like them: say anything bad about the other guy no matter how untrue, because it's "justified". They can't tell the difference. Here's the deal: Ed Rendell is perhaps one of the best governors PA has ever had. He is certainly the best mayor Philly has had in the last 50 years. He did an incredible job working with every side/interest group(of which there are a ton). It's easy to see how well he did when you consider what has happened to Philly in his absence = Massive Corruption and Massive Failure. This is what happens when an effective Democrat is replaced by a hopeless socialist. The socialist cannot get his worthless ideology out of the way long enough to actually accomplish anything, while cops and civilians are being murdered right and left, and his entire staff is so power-drunk, arrogant, smug, and so filled with the sense of their own entitlement(hmm entitlement and the far-left, what a shocker! ), that all of them get caught by the FBI with their hands in the till and all are in prison now. And, lo and behold, what do we have here? Any reasonable person knows that MSNBC(the "funny feeling up my leg" network) was/is completely in the tank for Obama, and hasn't even attempted to do their jobs properly. All Rendell did was do what he does: tell the truth. Can't wait for an Obama tool to show up here and start trying to attack Rendell.

Is Wright is gone or sent down to the PS(I think he is eligible, right?)?