OCinBuffalo

Hey I am not spinning anything - on a linebacking corp whose average age is 29.9(and that includes your never-to-start special teams guys) I suppose bringing in another 29 year old is par for the course. I remember watching the last game these guys played, and I especially remember them sucking wind at the end of the FIRST HALF. But, like I said, keep on lying to yourself. Unless, of course, you plan on starting 4 of these 5: Eric Alexander, Corey Mays, Pierre Woods, Thomas, or Roosevelt Colvin - the only LBs on the team on the right side of 30.

Yeah that answers it. Nothing like calling names. Dude you know what I am saying is true. Lie to yourself all you want. It changes nothing.

Right - the Pats have now won 3 of the last 6 Superbowls(formerly 3 of 5) so that means that they are going to win the division this year? What happens ten years from now? Are you going to be arguing: "Well, the Pat have won 3 of the last 16 Superbowls so, blah, blah, blah". This is a nonsense argument so cut the crap. You sound like Phil Simms. Signing another old linebacker PROVES that this team is in decline. Why? Because they are trying to hold it together by using the equivalent of bailing wire and bubble gum. Seau, and now Adalius Thomas, are not who you bring in if you are building for the future. They are who you bring in if you are trying to get one more good playoff year out of a DECLINING team. Of course, I can't blame the Patriots for trying to go the well one more time. But please, don't tell me that they are not on the decline when the evidence points to fact that they are. You are lying to yourself. And don't bother with the 2 draft picks in the first round argument, either. This draft been clearly acknowledged, by anyone that matters, as thin on immediate impact players and the Pats aren't drafting till LATE(24 and 28) in the first round - so these draft picks might as well be 2nd round = crapshoot. Sure they might get lucky, but then again, so might any team. Like I said = crapshoot. If you are saying that the Pats win the division based on this draft, again, you are lying to yourself. The Pats are pretty much stuck with the old guys they have. Now, can the old guys get it done->who knows? They may have one more playoff run in the tank. It will make for very entertaining games against us this year - young and talented vs. old and experienced. Classic struggle that goes on everywhere all the time in plenty of arenas besides football.

The beauty of the Bills FO is that they now, Thank God, have the same vision. We're coming for you. Our DEs are licking their chops.

I wasn't sure about this right off the bat....but when I got up this morning, I was. These numbers don't lie! These guys are HUGE and young! I can't wait to see them in training camp. I might have to make a special trip this year. OCiP = psyched!

Let me say first that I am asking for the opinions of those who have consistently posted since last year at the minimum that we need to DRAFT/SIGN offensive line players rather than "skill"(put this in quotes for Bill ) players. I don't care if others post, but the point of this thread is to determine the following: 1. Are the All-"Offensive Line First" team members happy with these new signings? 2. What, if anything, do we need to do NOW to improve the offensive line? 3. Most important: Does this allow us, in your view, to change priorities in the draft? If so, what can we change? 4. "IF" you are relatively satisfied with the moves, is the next priority Defensive line? 5. Are we now allowed to draft a corner #1?(Or, is Marv still a dunce if he does that?)

I posted the same elsewhere - nice to see someone's able to recognize the facts. There are far too many here unwilling, or unable to follow your example.

I see the logic but don't agree with the conclusion. If he's been up and down(/no need to duck flames - immunity for this post), then we should extend him now. Why would we want to wait until he has a killer stat year and then sign him? IF we get him now, and he stinks it up(/as doubtful as that is - why I have immunity:)) he costs us a hell of a lot less than if he does well and we wait to extend him.

Right on target and funny to boot(funny because it's true even). Finally, you and I agree.

Ditto to everything here

Dude, never before in human history has one guy been proven so wrong about so many things and then CONTINUES to run his mouth. You are batting like .170 in the "being right" department. I KNOW because I am on this board every day. Funny how we only see you here when the Bills make a major move. I KNOW that you don't want me to pull out all your posts from last year at this time and forward because you will be laughed off the board. Do us a favor - finish eating the buckets of crow you have left over from last year before you come out with new nonsense about Levy, Jauron, JP, etc. Oh yeah, how are the three guys, "The Bills are too stupid to draft/sign", you told us about doing in the NFL? Oh wait, none of them are in the NFL! The only thing BREATHTAKING here is the consistent wrongness you display, and the only thing that trumps that is your consistent willingness, only when the Bills make a move of course, to display it. Cut the crap! I was willing to listen to what you had to say last year(cause I didn't know better), but not any more. Why don't you tell us now that you are a TROLL; because we aren't buying your act any more.

Right on Brother! I am sick to tears of all of this negativity. Without any clear supporting evidence, some people around here are already going to write the Bills off in 2007? The negative Crackhead Brigade(or whatever that was) never seems to be around when we do well. The same exact thing is going on this season as last season. It also annoys me that these same posters only seem to show up the day we make a move and tell us IMMEDIATELY that it's definitely a BAD MOVE. I'm not going to name names but the Negative Crackheads have been proven clearly WRONG. Here are some examples from last year: 1. Hiring Marv 2. Hiring DJ 3. Deciding to start JP 4. JP getting better after the bye 5. Signing Nate Clements(I say this because there is NO WAY IN HELL Nate is worth $80 Mil over 8 years. I liked the guy, but NO WAY IN HELL is he worth that much.) I could go on but the point has been made. Not one negative poster was saying: Tutan Reyes is a definite bust. How convenient that they use that NOW and blow that up into: "Marv don't know football" because he signed a transitional player HIS FIRST YEAR AS GM! What did they expect? Marv came in with a schitload on his plate last year, and, taking the whole season into consideration, you guys want to crucify him over Tutan fuggin' Reyes? Bull fuggin' Schit. How consistently wrong these posters are, coupled with the fact that they only seem to show up when we make big moves, leads me to believe that they are TROLLS. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they are fans form other teams trying to get a rise out of us. Or, they simply like to start schit. Or, they hate their team's message boards(trust me most are beyond retarded), and come here because this is the only place you can actually learn something new about football. Either way, I suggest we ignore them. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS.

"This is a beautiful thing," said Dockery. "I've had a great time on my visit here in Buffalo. It's a top notch organization, owner, coach, the players, the fans, the city… they love their Bills and I'm really excited to be a part of it." Cool.

Just heard that - you beat me to this. Wow, Marv wasn't kidding about making the offensive line a priority. I wonder it this is it or if we can expect more?

So why didn't you? Or, wait, did you? All I did was state the facts about Kucinich. Are you going to deny/disagree with these facts? How is stating fact(s) "typical of the actual level of 'debate' in our country"? I'm glad the facts about your boy Kucinich are highly entertaining to you. I'm sure they are a hysterical for people in Cleveland. The guy has demonstrated through his own actions that he is not qualified to lead a cub scout den. Moreover, when presented with Kucinich's record by me(go look it up), you start complaining? The guy bankrupted Cleveland on his own, what does that have to do with me? No, I understand the point your are attempting to make. My issue with it is this: it makes no sense. How much money a guy makes is no guarantee of success! Your logic defies fact! Are you saying that the Enron CEO would not have ripped all those people off if he made more money??? How about CEOs in general? According to your logic we can guarantee ourselves that no top level executive will ever pull an Enron again as long as we pay them enough. Of course not! Ken Lay made a hell of a lot more than your proposed $500,000 and he still f'ed up - and he is not alone. How about the Rigas'? How about Daunte Culpepper? Do you think he wouldn't have gotten sacked by Ko if the Dolphins had paid him more money? People of all walks of life, that make all levels of money, have to be responsible for the authority they are given. Most managers take great pride in the fact that their people rely on them to do the right thing, at the right time. Money has nothing to do with that! What part of this don't you get? Perhaps you have never led? Perhaps you have not been a manager yet? I dunno? But the simple fact is: any real leader will tell you that there is always a time when everyone in their group, platoon, squad, conference room, etc., stops what they are doing, and looks to them to make a decision. It is at that point in time that the leader either earns the respect of his/her people or doesn't. I guarantee you no one(the leader or the team) is thinking about how much money they each make at that point in time. Dude - check the quotes in the article - every one is about leadership/management decisions. I don't see one where a teacher is saying: "Well, if the Superintendent made more money....." The guy should be fired, period. Not because he lacks talent, but because he just lost the respect of the people he is supposedly "leading". I can see where you wouldn't get the reference. How about answering some simple questions: What qualifies you to sit in judgment of this situation such that you can make a definitive statement that simply adding money to this equation will solve all problems? And, how do you "know" that will work? Why is this the only thing you have offered as a solution? Why are you suggesting that "talent" has a direct relationship to money(i.e. All people with talent make lots of money)? What data can you present that supports any of your answers?

I think today's Rosenhaus interview is pretty indicative of what is going to happen - they are gonna trade him. Rosenhaus is simply using ESPN to try and up the stock. The worst thing that can happen for Willis is this: nobody wants to trade for him. Then, he is stuck in Buffalo, in a contract year, where he better produce or it is bye-bye NFL "Star" time. That's a lot riding on one season. God forbid he gets hurt. If he stays and doesn't produce, his value is nothing, plus the bad PR that whoever signs him will get. Yuck! Rosenhaus has to move McGahee now or he's looking at serious risk later. IMO, Rosenhuas' bargaining position has only a 20% chance of getting better and a 80% chance of getting worse. That's why he is out here saying it's not WM fault, if he's looking to facilitate a trade(that he knows the Bills will agree to), he better do it now. I like Willis - I think he can get better - especially if he reads the play book. But what I like has nothing to do with Rosenhaus' bargaining position.

Hmmmm. Another thought I have is that not knowing the plays = why WM appeared to be "dancing" so much. If you don't know where the hole is supposed to be, I suppose that it follows that you would dance while you were waiting to see where the hole actually is, and then hit it.

How much do you wanna bet that this ends up being the final straw? I can't wait to hear/see the backlash this creates, , regardless of whether it's a valid criticism or not. There is some truth to this thinking or else: why did we reorganize the line halfway through the season. However, in comparison to the reports of Willis not knowing the plays(which haven't been confirmed), I'd say that it does next to nothing for me. What boggles me to this day is at one point during the season, Willis was leading the league in rushing. How do you do that if you don't know the plays? Did he get lucky?

I will be pissed - but like I said earlier, it's not like the move would be completely invalid. It is defensible all day because of the: "we need competition at every position" philosophy that Marv/DJ have. It worked great for the QB issue. Why wouldn't it work great at CB? We are losing a significant guy, and therefore that is going to create a significant hole. That hole has to be addressed in some fashion, and that is why taking a CB is "defensible". I just hope they don't so it. CB at #3 I'm OK with. IMO there is no way that Hall or whoever, is as valuable as Willis or Okoye or any of the guys that are listed in that other voting thread. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Just watched the second Jets game again last week, Youboty played very well. In fact, I give him partial credit for why Noodle Arm Chad got sacked so many times. There was nowhere to go with the ball. Sure you can point to Kiwaukee and Nate(McGee was hurt) but, the Jets used slot receivers a lot - and that was Youboty's job. He also looked good against the few runs he was in on. I HOPE that he is ready to step up to the starting CB spot, because there is convincing evidence that he can at least handle the nickel - yeah it's one game, but do we expect him to decline? So, I don't agree that he is an "unknown". Hopefully we know enough about him that we don't take a CB in the first round.

I would like to temper this debate with some good old facts: 1. We work with heath systems and have found that in general - a hell of a lot more emphasis is placed on Acute(right now) care, than on Long Term(recovery) Care. This is simply a prejudice that exists. I have some idea why - it appears that everyone is more concerned with the immediate "save the life now", than they are: "make sure the guy recovers". Beyond the obvious arguments for why this occurs, it also has to do with the prejudices/perceptions regarding the role of Acute Doctors and Nurses = the Varsity - vs. the role of long term care nurses = the JV. 2. Based on #1, when budget time rolls around, Acute care always eats first. Every Doc will tell you that they NEED the latest and greatest, 100 million dollar machine, regardless if it makes business sense. Why? Because it validates the Doc. Doctors generally make this case every time, and in their mind, if getting that machine means that the recovery people get less money/staff, well they will have to make due. I'm not saying it's wrong or right, because the other side of the argument is: what if that 100 million dollar machine saves two lives? It is what it is. 3. This story is all about deficiencies(Health Care term) in the NURSING care that RECOVERING patients get, so, based on #1 and #2, it is not a SURPRISE, in fact, it's commonplace in every hospital in the country. You would be truly SURPRISED by how many Deficiencies(based on surveys done by the Joint Commission, and/or federal and state surveyors) hospitals/nursing homes get every day. Btw, the whole survey system is BS and causes more trouble that it fixes. 4. Every hospital in the country has set itself up to get rid of its patients in 3-4 days after a procedure/acute care delivery because that's all insurance pays for. There are some cases where they are setting up sub-acute units - so they can bill Medicare for the recovery time, but that's it. This leads to a body-shop, or piece-work mentality = "get em, get em out, get the next ones in, etc., what happens to them afterwards is somebody else's problem." This mentality is pervasive throughout most health systems we encounter. These conditions/priorities/prejudices exist in every hospital, today, in America, so we shouldn't be shocked when they occur in the military.

Ha! Kid in on school bus beating Hillary in Today's Runoff - that is hysterical. I wonder if Kid on school bus is pro-choice? Better yet, what's his 40 time?

Dennis Kucinich - yes the same guy who basically bankrupted Cleveland when he was the mayor, this is the guy you want to hold up as poster-boy? Ouch. It took them years to recover from Denny's Great Society. Ever heard of "the Mistake by the Lake?" That was the nickname ol' Denny earned for Cleveland. Great Job! In fact, I was living there at the tail end of the recovery, after they had LOWERED taxes and created the Flats. Turned the whole city around. Kucinich better be going around kissing all the ass he can after that debacle; for the rest of his life. I admire his guts(or he is just plain nuts) for actually running for President with a record like that. Talk about failing upwards. Next. You obviously missed my point. I don't care how much a guy makes - an adult needs to be responsible for the authority they have been given, or that adult needs to be given less or no authority at all. This has nothing to do with Budgets. I have good friend, fraternity brother, who is a principal now. (By the way he got free school and the job because he is half African-American - I figured I would throw you a bone - but he is a solid guy and has worked hard and has earned the job regardless). I guarantee you he is not making worse or better decisions based on how much money he makes I've known the kid for years and he was capable of taking responsibility and making sound decisions way before he got his current job. If I asked him: "Scott, would you be able to make better choices if you made more money?" He would say:"OC, put down the crack pipe. That is the most retarded question I have ever heard. I have a lot more self respect than that. Don't get me wrong, I'll take the money you want to give me; and then you and I can go up to Canada and make great decisions about which stripper has the best t_ts!" If your boss came up to you one day and said: "I'll pay you more so you can make better decisions", are you telling me you wouldn't be offended? At the very least, you wouldn't develop a serious doubt about your abilities? As though you are merely a beast of burden who works better if they get fed more? The proof is the inverse: If your boss came up to you and said: "I'll pay you more because you have been doing a fine job" you would be gratified. Therefore: Is it OK for you to speak of others as beasts of burden, in this case this superintendent, and in this fashion because somehow human nature applies to you differently than the superintendent?

I'm sure you would agree that there is a huge difference between Nation-States going at it and border squabbles or the putting down of minor rebellions/going after brigands. And going after the Britons is nowhere close to dealing with the Carthaginians and/or Parthians. And come on, in context of the whole of the Roman Empire, you are gonna tell me that f-ing about with the Parthians and Dacians on the farthest border from Rome = all out WAR on the scale of the Punic Wars? I know that there were some large battles but those were more preemptive strikes than MAJOR WARS. In fact each battle pretty much settled things down for years after. It certainly doesn't come close to, later on, dealing with the Gauls, or worse, the Huns. When I said WAR I meant WAR, not squabble. While we're on that topic - what in your estimation - was the reason that the barbarians tribes were able to rise and even sack Rome? It wouldn't be the weakening of Rome's Legions or anything, would it? Nah, I'm sure it was the fact that Rome didn't do a good enough job NEGOTIATING with them. :w00t: Sure after the weakening of the army as a whole, the Romans did an even worse number on themselves with bad negotiating. However, without the root cause, the weakening of the military, there would have been no negotiating to begin with! Rather than playing games with details how's about you respond to the substance of my post?

How did I know that the clear failing of bad policy, that has been advocated for years by liberals, would end up someone else's fault? Of course it's not the fault of liberals: All liberals are smart and therefore create smart policy. Smart people and smart policies do not fail. Therefore liberals, by definition, cannot fail. And anyone who disagrees with liberals must be an idiot, because liberals are smart. This is the logic that is used by the far-left in just about everything. Whether you agree or not is immaterial because it is a fact! The use of this logic is precisely why two things occur: 1. Every single time someone disagrees with the far-left, they immediately begin calling that person names, rather than respond to the argument, because, due to the logic above, that person must be inferior - there's no other choice! 2. As you have so obviously stated above: Every single time a far-left policy/idea fails, it automatically must be someone else's fault. Why? Because taking responsibility for a failed policy would call into question the "smartness" of liberals. That contradicts premise #1 above so there is no other choice but to blame someone else! Edit: I forgot the solution part: in order to stop looking ridiculous, liberals, and you, need to drop the first two premises out of their thinking. Being a liberal doesn't make you smart, not being a liberal doesn't make you stupid. Being a liberal makes you: you. Any plan can fail. Liberal plans are not immune to failure, just as much as conservative plans are not immune to failure. Running around presuming that those who don't agree with you are idiots, and even worse,publicly stating your false presumption is the best way to play into their hands. Why? Because when, not if, some of your ideas fail, you are stuck with the presumption you created. When the facts prove otherwise, you look like the idiot.