JohnC

I respectfully disagree. In college the coaches have a lot more control and oversight of the players. In the pro ranks you have a lot of money and free time. I'm not suggesting that Dareus was a model athlete or person at Alabama. But Saban is a known disciplinarian who wouldn't tolerate repeated misdeeds. In addition, his roster is stacked. If Dareus was constantly late for meetings he would be watching the games, not playing in them.

Saban's team is loaded. Dareus would have been benched if not suspended. Dareus's individual indiscretions don't rise to a high level. But his repeated actions such as being late, sleeping in meetings and lack of conditioning demonstrate a lack of discipline and maturity. The issue for me isn't that he has gotten into trouble over various serious issues. It is the repeated nature of his misdeeds. It seems that he just doesn't care. He's not in college any more. He's having trouble coping on and off the field.

How do you think Saban, a strict disciplinarian, would have handled Dareus being repeatedly late for meetings? How do you think Saban would have handled Dareus sleeping in team meetings? How do you think Saban would have handled Dareus being arrested for using dope (synthetic or not) and then follow up that arrest with a police action over a crash related to racing? Do you think that Saban would have tolerated him coming into his training camp out of shape? Most people will agree that Dareus is not a criminal or a thug. It's obvious that he is immature and lacks discipline. But that doesn't mean that because he doesn't have any malicious intent that his irresponsible behavior, such as recklessly racing in an urban setting, can't get an innocent bystander maimed or killed. There are plenty of good role models for Dareus to follow on this team. And there are plenty of people on this team and within the organization who are concerned about his well-being. He isn't listening to them and he doesn't seem to care. He is using up his chips at a really fast rate. His juvenile act is not only self-destructive but it is alsotiresome.

Regardless if the Sabres land McDavid or Eichel they will have an additional infusion of high end talent from next year's draft. The Sabre system is already stacked with talent. That isn't a homer's view, it is the opinion of almost all of the NHL analysts. In a few years the talent in the lower system will be developed and brought up to the NHL. The excess amount of talent will be parlayed into additional high quality talent. The foundation and direction of this franchise is now established. In a few years this team will be a legitimate Stanley Cup contender. This organization has the right owner, GM and HC. They are all in sync. With a little patience the fans will be rewarded with entertaining hockey and the tickets will be hard to come by. I'm excited about the near future of this hockey team

I made the call yesterday. The customer service person couldn't help me so I said I want to cancel. I then spoke to the retention person and explained that I had a terrific bundle option with Verizon Fios that was a much better option than DTV. All I asked for was a free NFL Ticket, the same free service given to new customers. Without much further discussion he gave it to me. The representative was very professional and cooperative.

I just called. After talking to the regular customer service I was sent to the rentention person. I politely pointed out that I had a terrific bundling option with Verizon. All I asked for was getting the basic NFL Ticket for free, just as new customers get. I got it. The customer service office is very professional.

Thanks. I'll give them a call before the next billing.

Are the people who are calling for discounts been billed for the first installment of the NFL Ticket? I'm not sure if it is better towait for the actual billing of the Ticket before I make my discount pitch or do it now?

Who is he a shll for? Local fans act as if EJ is in the Andrew Luck category. He is not. That doesn't mean that EJ can't develop into a legitimate franchise qb. If Jaws would have stated that Manuel has the potential to be an all-pro the majority of the commentary would be that Jaws is an astute qb evaluator. Anyone who has with confidence already determined that EJ is going to be the Bills' longterm franchise qb at this point is simply being wishful.

I'm simply speculating as to why he stopped appearing. He might have gotten upset at the way this site was being run. I got very upset when I was sanctioned by the monitor and wasn't informed as to why I was sanctioned. For the life of me I couldn't figure out what was the problem and I couldn't get an explanation from the monitor. It got me so irritated that I took some time off from this site before getting back into the room. Maybe that is what happened with him??

What happened to San Jose Bill? He used to be one of the most prolfic and good posters? Did he leave in anger?

His case was a clear case of jury nullification. For the jury it wasn't so much about his football status as it was his racial status and its perception of the police department.

We can go in circles on this issue and still get no where. So let's just see how this actually develops. It appears that the defense believes that the prosecution doesn't have sufficient evidence to make its case, at least adequately enough for him to make a deal on the offered charge. Maybe it is holding off for an even lesser charge? You can be sure that the defense is going to argue that this case is not about assumptions but about evidence, of whichi the prosecution has little. The defense is going to remind the jury that their job is to base their decision on the qualtiy of the evidence or lack of and not to base their decision on a preconceived notion. I understand your stance. It's very reasonable. But very often what seems obvious is not so obvious in a courtroom when it is not buttressed with evidence. As I stated in my very first posting on this topic sometimes assuming what happened doesn't necessarily prove what happened from a legal standpoint. I suspect a deal will be reached on a lesser charge. Dareus has enough money to buy high quality representation. Without a doubt the quality of his represntation will influence the outcome.

The bottom line in this case (so far) is that the police didn't witness the speeding and the police have (as I understand) no actual witnesses (willing to testify) to the event. It's very common for the police to respond to various complaints regarding incidents. But when it comes to taking a case to the court room the authorities can't merely rely on assumptions. There's an obvious reason for that. His representatives don't believe that the authorities have a case. Dareus is not obligated to prove his innocence in court. By legal strategy his voice would not be heard in court. It's the prosecution's responsibility to prove his guilt. There is a difference between thinking you know what he did and proving it in a court of law.

If a person is given immunity to testify he can be forced to testify. However, this isn't the type of case (level of seriousness) where such legal measures would be used by the prosecution. Just because you have the authority to compel a response doesn't mean that is what is going to happen. That's my opinion.

I want to make clear that very often circumstantial evidence is quality evidence, especially if there is a variety of circumstantial evidence that links the defendant to a crime. I haven't folowed the Dareus case that closely but it seems to me that if his attorney hasn't agreed to a plea deal now he will make a deal at a later point for a lesser charge. This is a type of case that the authorities don't want to take to court.

You may be getting your legal concepts mixed up. The central issue for the DA is not or is not supposed to be an ability to convince a jury that the defendant is guilty of a crime. In many cases, if not most, the jury is favorably disposed toward the prosecution before the evidence is even presented. The critical issue for the DA is whether he/she has enough evidence, circumstantial or hard evidence, that proves that the defendant committed the crime. Very often a DA knows who committed the crime but lacks the evidence to prove it in a legal setting. In that scenario from a ethical legal standpoint the case should not even be brought to a courtroom. There is another issue that a DA has to consider when deciding to formerly charge an individual. If a DA believes he/she has sufficient evidence to prove guilt in a courtroom but doesn't believe that a jury can be convinced to convict the subject (due to bias) then the DA would be justified in not prosecuting the case. The issue comes down to limited government resources and the best usage of it. If the DA believes that the jury won't convict regardless of the evidence then the DA probably won't waste its financial and manpower on a case that they believe will not result in a conviction. Apparently Dareus's attorney believes he can get a better deal or beat the rap. You are correct that a single holduout juror doesn't result in an acquittal. It is a deadlock in which the prosecution would have theright to take the matter to court again. Given the nature of the offense it is my opinion that it wouldn't waste its time and resources on a relatively trivial matter (from a criminal standpoint)trying the case again.

As you stated Justin Timberlake is an incredibly versaatile performer. He can sing, dance, act and has great stage presense. In some respects he reminds me of Sammy Davis Jr., who also could sing and dance. His dancing predated the Michael Jackson dance routines. It was sad that Sammy Davis Jr. had drinking and addiction issues that tormented him his adult life. He had little personal discipline (to put it mildly) that caused his demise. But as a performer he was superb.

Good taste. What I find very appealing about him is his good nature. He isn't the star performer who has to contend with personal demons and acts out with bad behavior. He is a good dude. On stage he seems to be enjoying himself. I attached a poor quality clip thatdemonstrates how he clicks with the audience. http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2014/07/06/paul-mccartney-invites-rochester-fans-onstage-to-propose-during-concert/12264947/

Whome do you consider the greatest living entertainer? Just curious?

I don't understand your position. You are stating the obvious when you make the point that not having a franchise qb curtails the team's odds on being a seriously competive team. The Bills used a first round pick on a qb prospect they thought could develop into a franchise qb. If he fails then the front office will have to continue in their pursuit of a quality franchise qb. What else do you expect them to do: Throw up their hands in frustration and lament to the gods how life is so unfair? If EJ doesn't work out then you continue with your pursuit of a quality qb. Wouldn't it be self-defeating to prematurely discard a prospect because of impatience and then see the player playing well on another team. > It seems to me under Whaley he has stabilized this very chaotic organization and made it into a normal franchise The past is the past. Criticizing this regime for the mistakes of the past is patently unfair. Judge Whaley on what he has done, not what transpired before he assumed authority. Sometimes an abused dog will reflexively flinch when a new owner attempts to kindly pet the traumatized animal because it remembers how it was previously treated. It seems to me that your judgment for today is contaminated by the history of the past. Let it go and move on to the present. You'll have a fresher perspective if instead of looking back you look at what is happening in front of you.

I don't understand your position of not buying into the hype. What hype are you referring to? Is this a SB caliber team? Of course not. Who is promoting that ideal notion? The organization surely isn't promoting that zany idea. You again lost me with your nebulous comments about the failure of this franchise's staff not building a foundation for a SB. What dos that mean? If the orgnization drafts well and finds their franchise qb then they can compete at a higher level and position themselves for a more serious SB run some day down the line. How else can it be done? Why do you insist that they are not only not doing that but that they are as they are currently functioning not planning on doing that? The Bills have been out of the playoffs for 14 consecutive years. Under Whaley they are steadily upgrading the roster. The drafts are better and the free agent acquisitions are very sound. The central issue for this franchise is over the qb issue. Is EJ the answer? You conclusively say no whle I suggest that we should be more patient on the qb issue and see how it plays out. What has me perplexed is that I don't know what more you want this front office to do that they haven't been doing over the last couple of years? You have to remember that this historically backwater franchise has for a very long time been been run in an erratic faashion by utter incompetents. You don't think that the Levy hiring as a GM was weird? The Dick Jauron hring wasn't very inspiring. And extending his contract was simply dispiriting. It seems to me under Whaley he has stabilized this very chaotic organization and made it into a normal franchise that hopefully in the near future will be a successful franchise.

You are correct that I am not at this early point making a declaration that he is going to be a legitimate franchise qb or not. The issue I have with him is his level of accuracy. However, I consider him a good prospect because he has the makeup (maturity and work ethic) and physical tools to be a good qb. With respect to your read option preference my response is simply: HELL NO! Even if the Bills had Kaepernick as their qb I would still prefer having my qb be reluctant (judiciious) when deciding to take off. In the short term having your qb run past the line scrimmage for a respectable gain may be productive but the cummulative battering will take its toll. Griffin from the Redskins is a good example of that point. Last year, Hackett started his reign as an OC with a quick paced no huddle offense that didn't demonstrate how smart he was as a coordinator so much as it demonstrated how inexperienced he was as a coordinator. He had no choice but to tone down his accelerated pace because it was disasterous to both the offense and defense. His approach to handling a rookie qb never made sense to me. On a side note I want you to know that just because you have some different opinions from the majority on some topics that doesn't put you in the category of being overly negative or disloyal. Although we have different opinions on the Spiller selection that doesn't mean that your position on him doesn't have some merit, even if it is wrong! LOL

One of the points I was trying to make is that GMs in all professional sports recognize the tenuous nature of their positions. They do their best and understand the environment they work in. I agree with you that Whaley wasn't taking an approach of looking over his shoulder in every transaction he was making. As you stated he was simply doing his job in trying to improve his team. NYC Bill was insinuating that he was making a panic Watkins deal to save his job at the expense of mortgaging the future. I disagree with that assessment. In my view Whaley believed the Watkins deal was a good deal for now and the future. I think that Whaley and his staff will remain with a new ownership group. But it is not unusual that when a new owner takes over he replaces the former group with his own hires.

I'm sure that you can agree that over the last generation the Bills were more known for its staid approach than for its creative approach in operating this sluggish franchise. The Bills not only rated Watkins as a Green type receiver but they also had him at the top of their board. So they traded a future asset to secure a player who they felt was talented enough to be on top of their board this year and in comparison near the top of the board in most draft years. Doug Whaley certainly did take a calculated risk in maneuvering for a player he considers special. My position is what is wrong with that? If he felt that there were other comparable receivers he would have remained at his draft position and selected the alternative. But the bottom line is he graded Watkins as an elite propsect and did what he had to do to secure him. Didn't Bill Polian gave up a lot of assets to acquire Cornelius Bennett, a player he felt would have a major impact on the defense? What Whaley gave up was minimal compared to the Polian trade deal. You are absolutely correct. There is no hidden agenda here. Whaley came out and said that 14 years of no playoff appearances are unacceptable. He clearly stated on WGR that now is the time and he is going for it. Is it about saving his job? Of course it is. That is the tenuous nature of the GM position. What's so surprising about a GM running a franchise that has had a dismal record for a very long time and being aware of his precarious status with a new ownership about to takeover? Where I strongly disagree with your analysis is that you are insinuating that he mortgaged the franchise's future in the Watkins's trade up in order to save his job. You are exaggerating the repercussion and motivatiion of that particular deal. As you and many others have noted the success of this team is directly related to how EJ performs. It's unrealistic to think that he will play at an elite level this year or any year. However, if he can play at a competent franchise qb level I believe that the Bills will be a competitive team. If not then we go to the next option until a better option is found.