Kgun5

A detroit radio station is reporting that there is a last ditch effort by Bettman to strike a deal...I find little hope from that report, though.

On a lighter note, which news conference does WGR carry at 1pm? The pooping the bed of: Bledsoe? The NHL? Joel Giambra?

Fine with me, too...Except I WAS kind of hoping to see the novelty that would have been the 20-30 game season. I really miss playoff hockey in Buffalo, and in a short crapshoot, we may have actually gotten in this "year". Of course that wouldn't have been as good for the game as a whole, so the disappointment is mitigated.

C'mon...The ONLY reason the NHLPA "caved" on the salary cap is so they would look good in the upcoming adjudication (where the owners will try to declare an impasse). The Goodenow knew the owners wouldn't go to $49 million, so that's where the NHLPA took their stand following their recent monumental move...after MONTHS of not moving at all. And it's all stupid, because the owners will get their impasse (should they seek it), and will almost certainly be allowed to use replacement players next year. That would mean the owners could essentially reinvent the sport, its rules, and its CBA. Assuming there's no miracle deal or crazy court ruling, the players have really screwed themselves here.

In all of the posturing, the intent of the OP has gotten lost. The fact of the matter is that there is no cut and dry way to "judge" someone's worth as an employee from the number of times they've called in and said they were not coming into work on a given day. There will be exceptions to any rule one tries to apply. That being said, I think it's silly for an employee that calls in sick at the drop of a hat (say, on every third Friday) to expect the issue of sick time not to come up in their yearly review. However, at the same time, no manager should decide that anyone who happens to use up their entire allotment of sick days (1 or 2 at a time) will not be able to achieve a certain rating. What if said employee still works longer hours over the course of the year? What if (s)he produces more than any other employee? What if (s)he really is very succeptable to viral and bacterial infections, and would actually hurt the company by attending work on those days? I wouldn't blame any manager for inquiring about the usage, but why does the company offer X amount of days if they plan to punish those that utilize them? It's akin to hiring someone on for a 40 hour week, but then punishing those that don't work 60. With all due respect to the managers here, companies have gradually been encroaching on the rights of the worker over the past 20 years. It is now to the point where most younger families must have duel incomes. This is even true for families with no kids, like my own. Overtime is expected and uncompensated in a specific manner. It is seen as a company loyalty issue, yet the loyalty from the company to the worker has drastically decreased. It is no longer a virtue to be a 30-year employee in most companies, as it probably only signifies that the company wasn't able to find a cost effective way to replace you. Pensions are being cut. Health benefits are being cut. Benefit "standards" are being lowered pretty much across the board. In a nutshell, companies are expecting more from the worker, while offering less. Because of this, forgive me if I don't cry a river for the company when someone misuses a sick day once in a blue moon. Especially since the word "sick" has many meanings. Physical sickness may be easy to work through compared to the emotional or mental anguish some employees could experience. At any rate, as with everything in life, moderation is the key. My favorite excuse is the concussion. It is obscure enough to avoid scrutiny, yet always plausible. It is serious, but can leave the afflicted looking and feeling fine 24 hours later. It can happen at any time of day or night, and even a doctor would be unable to catch the lie without heavy duty tests. It's drawback is that it can only be used once.

Did he have confidence he could win against a good team? Maybe (probably) not. Once it looked like the Steelers came to play, he lost it. I never said his level of comfort stayed the same from game beginning to end.

This is just what I'm talking about...Vanderjagt's miss in week 1 notwithstanding, hasn't the guy earned (through his career) the right to talk a little about the football game? Why is he a jerk for talking about how the Pats have injuries that he hopes his team can exploit?

I'd wait and see how our schedule shakes out. If we open with some cupcakes, catch some good teams at midseason in Buffalo, and close with some average-to-weak teams that are just playing out the string, it could go really well for us. We've seen that Bledsoe's level of play, like a kicker's, tends to vary widely depending on his confidence.

Not that I necessarily disagree, but it seems as though I heard this same thing before the last 4 years started. The Bills since the Bledsoe era started have been schizophrenic. 2003 and 2004 saw us be called both offensive juggernauts (with SB possibilities), and "the worst offensive team in the league". 2002 never saw us reach either of those plateaus, but was still a tale of two halves. There has never been a season in which the offense hasn't had at least 6 bad games...Tough to imagine us winning 12 unless something changes.

They're so "cheap", too. Having a stud kicker costs you less than having a stud at any other position. Strange.

PK's that can make the big kicks perhaps should get more respect as football players.

Me too...Easy call.

...And I had the URLs of all the "I was wrong" posts I was going to make today at the ready. In the end...who cares. We showed we weren't ready this year. Next year, howver, we will be. This game should not have meant bull puckey, but because of our start, it did. Next year, hopefully, we wont piss away the early year and will dominate from whistle to whistle. I'm happy thet I had as something to root for on Jan 2. Go Bills in '05!

Crap.

i know they have the tiebreaker over Minnnesota too. But if they lose to Phili, are they done?

Drunk now. Not going math-pimping. Anyone?

And I almost went to bed...The Bills got a tiny gift tonight, even if central va didn't. Brady is human after all.

We DO NOT beat the Broncos in a tiebreaker. For ties involving teams of different divisions, it is head-to-head, then conference record. If Buffalo and Denver tie at 10-6, Denver will have a better conference record than us. There are several threads that have listed all of these cases, though I realize the search engine has been turned off.

I agree completely...I was just as critical of those who bashed Donahoe for Bledsoe/Mike Williams/McGahee/etc, when at the time the moves happened to get those players, these same people applauded him. But on the other side of that coin is that, at 1-5 (18-36 overall,) on our second "new" coach in three years, and not having been to the playoffs, Donahoe had not achieved the goals he set out for the team. Now our future looks bright, but it also did to start 2003 (we made a late playoff run in 2002 and were supposed to really challenge for a playoff spot). We started great, then pooped'em. Until TD puts together a full 16 games season of success, I don't see why he should be beyond reproach. Still, I like the way he keeps the Bills in the thick of NFL news and is willing to take risks. We'll see how it goes.

I thought I was clear in addressing that: Also, my last line was about people calling for his head when we were 1-5. At that time, the Bills had not made the playoffs under Donahoe, and the 1-5 start PROBABLY will cause them to miss them this year. So in the end, I don't see how those people have to eat crow. Thos 5 losses out of the first 6 are just as significant to our season as these last 7 wins out of 8. I'm not a Donahoe hater. I just don't think that the concerns those people had at 1-5 are no longer valid, since it may well be that start that keeps us from the promised land.

I wasn't one of those calling for Donahoe's head, (though I was calling for JP to start getting work as a starter,) but why would someone eat crow for that? I'm not saying things aren't looking great right now, but at 1-5, Donahoe's record was (I believe) 18-36, a .333 clip. Also, I still hope for a tiny miracle, but if the Bills miss the playoffs this year, Donahoe's teams will still not have gotten there (and that's in today's 0-16-to-the-Super-Bowl NFL). He picked a lemon in Gregg Williams, and (at the time) the 2002 draft looked like a terrible bust. Even with the turnaround, that draft was by no means great. Again, I wasn't calling for his head back then, as I agreed with most of the decisions he made when he made them. I'll admit that. But I don't see how you can ask those who were looking for a change to eat crow when TD's teams have still failed in the ultimate objective of making the playoffs.

All I said is that the chance for a Jets loss at St. Louis is similar to the chance that the Jags will lose either of their remaining games. I don't think either will happen, and was in fact villified in another thread here for saying so. So if you think the Jets are "already in", then you may as well say the Jags are "already in".

Why? They have NE at home next week, which they'll be favored to lose, and I don't see how the Jets at Rams is any more of a stretch to hope for than it is to hope for the Jags to lose one of their last two.

You left out the Jets losing their last two.

Common opponents only comes before conference record in divisional ties. K's Helmet post is correct. I do take issue with him stating that it's more likely (by about 10%) that Jax will lose a game than it is that Denver will, but that's just opinion.