CBA Part 1: Details

I have been reading about the "uncapped year" in 2010 and the "end" of the draft in 2011 as the owners opted out of the CBA last week. Um. Devil's in the details, as always. And despite the number of details, it always seems that writers and fans alike consistently get things wrong. Pat Kirwan, (one on 2010 FA implications, and another that expands the 3rd point from that piece), Vic Carucci , Peter King, (here as well) took a good look at the facts, and basic implications, of the opt-out. Michael Lombardi on SI.com had a great article on how teams can hedge their bets for the possibility, and Clayton on ESPN did a half-job on an article as to who is and isn't well poised for the possibility.



The first real ramification is for the 2010 season (and Ifseason, as March is the start/finish of the league year). So we first need to get through the 2008 season, the 2009 Draft and Ifseason, the 2009 season. So, there is a lot of opportunity for teams to change before the possibility of an uncapped season arrives. Bring on the panic patrol! - of national sportswriters that is.



I'm going to look at each of these points throughout the week in regards to the CBA and the Lions:

1. (tonight) What exactly are the details, what do I think will happen, and what would the impact be if it did?


2. What have the Lions done, and what will they try to do, to prepare for both a capped and uncapped 2010?


3. Are they in as much trouble as Clayton says?


4. Final Thoughts

Okay, I've seen lots of good, bad indifferent info on this topic -- and I'm sure we'll see a lot more. Not as Lions-centric tonight as it will be after this, so my apologies; Exposition is a necessary evil.

Here is a timeline, as I can see it, for the next few seasons, assuming nothing gets done.

• 2008 Season: no changes in CBA, Lions go to playoffs as wildcard and get booted in rd 1.


• 2009 Ifseason: Cap Increases to approx $123 million. No changes


• 2009 Season: Lions go to playoffs as division champs, and lose in 2nd round. Are thus a top 8 team.


• 2010 Ifseaon: Lots of changes: Rookies are FA after 6 completed years, not 4 as current; Teams have 1 Franchise, 2 Transition tags - and can use all 3, not just one; Top 4 Teams will be severely restricted in FA, only able to sign FA equal to those they lose; Top 5-8 Teams will be limited to one large FA move (est over 3.8 mill approx deal), but unlimited deals under that amount; No Salary Cap;


• 2010 Season: Rules are the same -- Lions go to conference championships


• 2011 Ifseason: Same rules as 2010; In addition, college draft is eliminated


• 2011 Season: big Strike and Lockout at the same time as neither on realizes the other one isn't going to let them play if they want, players all start drinking heavily, get DUI's and thrown in jail in ever greater numbers as they move onto hard-core drugs and everyone decides to care about Baseball, Basketball, and Hockey again instead as the NFL is not watched even as it returns to work with some new deal in place that, thanks to lots of Patriots lobbying, allows that spygate be stricken from the records and that they get to choose any guy drafted in 2008 pick 31 or later, and add him to their roster immediately, not questions asked and take star OT Gosder Cherilus from the Detroit Lions and are allowed since he was a reach anyways.

So, did the last pert get absurd enough for you? They got it done last time, and will do so again -- If I were a betting man I'd say about March of 2010, even if they have to "postpone" the start of the league year again to finalize details.

There are a couple of points about the current CBA that do need fixing. One is that the teams have to give 60% of REVENUE to players, not profit as is often stated, but Revenue. This means ALL money that comes in from all sources before ANY expenses are deducted. What this has done is hurt larger teams, maimed moderate teams (such as the Lions), and would utterly destroy teams like Buffalo if left in place. In business, many of you may be thinking, payroll is the highest expense. 60% isn't too awful bad.

But lets look again. That is not payroll for EVERYONE that is just the 53 guys who make the roster and 8 practice squad blokes. Not: the trainers, coaches, towel guys, janitors, security, concessions employees, cost of materials for concessions, uniforms, travel, equipment, lodging and food for players and support personnel during the season and ifseason, scouting, management, facilities (like the stadium, practice fields, offices), phone bills, electricity....I think you get my point. While it is true that an NFL franchise can be quite lucrative, when the revenue sharing check is 87 million, and the cap is 115 million...you are starting to get some small teams in trouble. 40% of total dollars is what is left for profits and all those dratted other expenses. Throw in saving cash for those big Signing Bonuses players love to get -- even though the cap spreads them out over 5 or 6 years, the money still has to be paid up-front. so that again makes much more than 60% of revenues going to just the players. Looking at most other businesses, that is a disproportionately high number.

I'm not, before you get started, defending owners, excess earnings, etc. -- just saying that the current CBA was causing some serious cash-flow issues for the small franchises -- which threatens the parity that the NFL has.

The other problem is the "rookie pool" -- meant to be a rookie salary cap, it really just encourages deals that hit the cap a lot harder in subsequent years after the first -- which as the Lions know, can cause real havoc with the cap if you have top-10 picks that don't work out.

The current cap system also has a minimum spending floor -- so teams HAVE to spend just a touch over 100 million of their cap space.

All in all, I'll go opposite of what I hear many fans saying --- I think that the players have the most incentive to get the deal done before the 2010 ifseason, and that they will give enough concessions and trade-offs to the owners to get it done. The owners, in some ways, would welcome the uncapped year and the new rules -- especially the greater ability to keep players through their prime playing years.

What are the players benefits: No cap theoretically means that they will have bigger contracts, as teams try to "buy championships"; Not too much else, really, that I can see, is a significant benefit

What are the detriments to players: 6 years for FA instead of 4, three ways to be forced to stay after those years are done, inability to go as a FA to contenders as they will be limited in their FA moves.

What are plus points for owners: No minimum spending, keep drafted players longer, more ways to keep top players in their prime for less money

What are negatives: Serious restrictions on FA for perennial contenders will place even more emphasis on good drafting -- not less. No cap means it would be easier for big market teams to get and retain good players that small market teams can't afford to keep or franchise.

To me, all of this points to both sides having some pretty significant incentive to come to a deal, as I said, by March 2010. In the meantime, there are some things that teams can do to get ready just in case, and some teams are positioned well -- while others could be in trouble if 2010 happens. Anything beyond that would be mere wild speculation (and even looking to 2010 is a pretty big stretch, but I'll do it anyways because it is fun.)

Sorry if I made a lot of eyes glaze over, but this is a big issue for all teams over the next couple of years, including the Lions.

Otah - Uh-Oh

Following in the steps of the plethora of Lions beat writers doing pieces on anyone and everyone who is not actually on the roster of the Detroit Lions, I saw this piece on Jeff Otah and just had to put it on here.

Funny points? That the ankle injury that was supposedly healed before the draft will likely keep him out of practice at least until training camp.

That giving up what amounts to a ransom to Philly to pick an injured RT 2 spots AFTER the Lions took Cherilus...is termed as a bold move by the national media.

All I can say is that I'm sure glad the Lions stayed away from "bold moves" like that went the timid route picking a guy who has already earned reps with the first team from Marinelli, who doesn't even hand the valet anything without the guy proving himself, and was considered the best pure RT in the draft.

My take? Their bold move was desperation because they knew once Cherilus was gone, there was going to be a run on OT's they weren't expecting until the end of the round, not the middle. Knee jerk reaction was to give up a luxury-yachtload of picks to Philly to be sure they at least got someone with a 1st or 2nd round grade...which wasn't going to happen at the end of the round where I went back and found they were rumored to be looking at trading in to (late 20's)

What is even more amusing to me is that, had the picks been reversed (Lions take Otah, Carolina moves up for Cherilus, which I think they would have done) then the Lions would be taking a massive national beatdown about how Millen always drafts hurt players, Otah was a reach and they should have taken a guy like Cherilus since their need was right tackle. Meanwhile, similar to how NE was treated for the Mayo pick (that pundits were saying would be a reach for Detroit at 15) the Lions are still being hammered for "reaching" for a dominant player who fits their scheme over an injured one who doesn't.

Tomorrow I'll rip apart Clayton's completely ill-thought presentation of who is and isn't ready for a possible uncapped season in 2010 as I continue my impromptu series on inept national sports writers who have any obscure link I can justify to the Lions in some way. Pretty much the same relation their facts and logic have to the conclusions they are making -- most likely about 4 times as much, now that I look at it. Or maybe 4.354 since it will make it sound like I did research by throwing out a random meaningless number versus actually researching something.

Jones? Am I missing something?

I'm trying to figure out exactly what gives here. It seems that the local media is more obsessed in covering ex-Lions players than they are the current ones. Funny that just a couple of months after Tom Kowalski, and others, applauded the move to cut Kevin Jones -- they are now bemoaning the fact that they cut him, and practically worshiping him -- despite a video in which he (barely) manages to outrun a former Olinemen and a running back who if Out-Of-Football!

Also, if you look at Nicky's comments in the Freep, he implies he was there and that if we were there, we'd have been impressed too! Umm...he wasn't there. He watched the same video. I'll let you judge for yourself, but watching that video and knowing what I do about Football led me to believe the Lions made the right choice -- not a bad one.

Lets take a moment, and push aside all negativity, all positivity, and all emotion and take a good last look at this situation -- what the facts and odds were, and what the Lions stood to gain and lose from both keeping him or cutting him not just this season, but in 2009 and beyond as well.

First of all, unless someone else signs Jones to a 3.281 million dollar contract (guaranteed base salary plus bonus) this season and he plays as a number one back from game one through 16 -- then it was a good move on the Lions' part. That was their cost to keep him, and even if he gave them that I think they reasoned they could (and I'm betting will) get that kind of prodcution without Jones and with an eye toward continued success beyond 2008. I'll lay out my argument here, and see if you agree.

The first situation is Jone's injuries. No matter how he always seems to make light of them, or pretend he can come back 100% in half the time it takes the average player -- he has been hampered by injuries both minor and major since he entered the league. Even his rookie season, by far his best year, he missed time due to injury. The knee injury last season was an indirect result of his foot injury, no matter what Jones' or the Lions' spin doctors say.

I have, as we all do when we get older, various aches from old injuries (football, car wreck, being a stupid young daredevil for a while). When my leg hurts, I tend to put more weight on my other leg -- which means I also but more pressure on my hip in the small of my back, which makes my back hurt. Because my lower back hurts, I sit and walk differently to try to make it feel better, which places more pressure on my legs and makes my knee hurt...then as I sit differently my shoulder on the opposite side hurts. Now, I'm not anywhere close to incapacitated by any means -- they are just annoying aches. But you can see the pattern -- now project that onto a major foot injury... Jones admittedly had so much pain he couldn't walk til Wednesday, and didn't practice at all. Now, how many offenses can function when their number one back only plays or practices on game day in extreme pain.

He ran differently by favoring the foot, and trying to change his style to minimize the impact of his foot not being 100%. It's not all Jones' fault, as the Lions have a history of rushing players back from knee injuries (for example, Brian Calhoun who re-injured the same knee, and Charlie Batch who couldn't plant to throw but was under center - and injured his knee coming back form a broken leg.)

If you look around the NFL the trend is there -- players who attempt to come back too early from injury get re-injured, or suffer an indirect injury. If he doesn't come back early, he still is not 100% for camp, not 100% fr the season. Keep in mind, he has NEVER played a full season in his first 4 years in the league.

Next we get to the business decisions. Kevin Jones is only 25, about to be 26. But he is entering his 5th year in the league. He has had two major and a half dozen minor to moderate injuries. He was also in the last year of his contract, and counting 3.281 million against the cap. (as per his 2008 base salary and Signing bonus allocation per NetRat's cap spreadsheet). How much juice did he have left? It was not only a matter of salary, but a matter of future salary and roster space.

First, roster space. Is there the opportunity to fill the roster spot vacated by him with a player who would contribute at least as much, possibly in more ways, for at least the same cap number or less? I think we can agree that answer is yes. Is there any doubt that Kevin Smith will in all probability be able to play more than 13 games per season and get more than 600 yards as the #1 back? Granted the Lions didn't have Kevin Smith when they cut Jones, but they knew who was available in the draft -- and that was about a dozen backs who would be safe bets to replace the production Jones had shown over the last 3 seasons -- and at least a dozen more who would have been gambles, but relatively safe ones. The Lions needed more back-ups to have more positive contributions on special teams. But if you have KJ and a drafted back (Smith) as your #1 and #2 back...you have 2 of 4 active RB each week who are only playing offense.

Michael Turner, Tomlinson's backup, also played on the special teams coverage and return units. With the 53 man roster, and further limited number of game-day players, every position is important and everyone beyond your immediate starters needs to be able to contribute on special teams, or in multiple ways.

The next point is about not just the current cap savings of 2.54 million, but what about his 2009 pay? Killer got it right the first time around, and now he's back pedaling. The Lions never said Jones was washed up. They didn't say he couldn't be a productive back in the NFL. They didn't even say he couldn't fully recover and be a great back in 2009. What they did say is that he wouldn't be likely to win a starting job back until the 2nd half of the season, if at all.

These are the scenarios I picture the Lions considering at that time:

1. Jones makes it into camp, is able to participate some, and then is ready to start the season full tilt by say, game 3. then he makes it through the whole season and gets over 1,000 yards. Now what? Do you pay him a megabucks contract? That hasn't worked so well for the last few teams that have done so (think S. Alexander, Thomas Jones with NYJ, Dominic Rhodes, Edgerrin James). Marinelli has been more like the Colts or Patriots in player signing strategy lately than the Cardinals or Redskins (which is a good thing). So even if he does come back, odds on are the Lions were still going to have to draft a replacement for him, just to be sure (unless you think Tatum Bell is long-term insurance vs. one year "just in case") -- do you pay Jones big money, or let the new guy get in there and compete?

2. More likely, Jones come in and contributes the second half of the season. If Smith, for instance, had locked up the starting role, then what of Jones? He'd at that point be a very expensive third down back, unlikely to be resigned for the reasons above.

3. Jones doesn't recover to his rookie form, performs average and is not resigned at the end of the season, as some other team will out-bid them hoping another year will get him back to his Rookie form.

In all the scenarios the Lions were essentially in a situation where Jones was in a 1 year contract, and they could pay him -- or his replacement and a couple of badly needed solid free-agents.

Considering the upside and the downside for the Lions, it really made sense both in terms of potential contribution to the roster, current salary cap, and spending in the future.

Also, for those who point to signing Tatum Bell to "replace" Jones, they signed him to compete and be sure they had at least one healthy back going into the draft to give them options.

As we have seen and been talking about, the RB position is strong with great competition from talented players who are all pushing each other to try for a roster spot. How would Jones have fir into that competition? Cap wise, it is the same argument we are using for Bell possibly being cut. I checked, and cutting him would save 1.1 million to the cap. KJ -- had they brought him to camp -- would have been a 2.48 million savings. Based on likelihood to contribute, I find it hard to believe that with all the factors in play, KJ would have ended up on the final 53 barring a miracle. I think the Lions saw that too, and let him go early to help give them the latitude to sign needed veterans like B. Kelly, D. Smith, and C. Darby.

Whether or not Jones succeeds elsewhere in the League is not really relevant. For the Lions, based on the current situation, the costs of keeping Jones did not outweigh the benefits both for this season, and beyond -- even in the best case scenarios. It happens all the time around the league -- Drew Brees anyone? -- Jamall Lewis? -- Cory Dillon? -- Ahman Green? (to the Pack, not Houston) -- and plenty more. What really needs to be looked at is: what are the costs and relevant benefits - opportunity cost in economic terms. And for Jones, the opportunity cost of keeping him was higher than the benefits to be gained by releasing him. I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to bring him back at the veteran minimum to compete in camp -- which I can guarantee is what New England and Tennessee were offering. Right now his agent is doing what agents do -- trying to get someone else to bid on his client, to get KJ something above Vet minimum. Not so sure that he'll get anyone to bite.

Honestly, and you can refer to this later, I don't care if he does go to Tennessee and plays us later in the season. Just as motivated as he will be to come back, the current backs will be motivated to show they are better than Jones, and the D will be motivated to kick his butt since he has now already implied that he'd run all over them given the chance. Not a real complimentary statement about the Lions D (true though it was last season) -- and one it seems guys would take offense at, should it come to that. Personally, I think a team like Arizona or Houston, in need of an additional back, will take a shot on him hoping he does come on by the second half of the season and will be able to contribute. But only, as Bob Barker liked to say, if the Price is Right...

That is my final take, and final word on Jones.

"Play for the Man..."

I ran across this well done interview by Philip Zaroo on Mlive's Highlight Reel. It is an interview with Lions great Lomas Brown. Many Lions fans do not realize that he was also part of the 2002 Tampa Bay Team that won the SB. What many also do not realize is that when Gruden came, Marinelli was given title of Assistant Head Coach, as well as DBacks coach. He also had a heck of an influence on that whole team, as Brown, an Olineman obviously respects Marinelli.

Of all the points he made, many of which were excellent and show he still follows the Lions, a couple stood out to me:

When he talked about Marinelli can't go out and catch, and block, and tackle -- it's time for the players to start acting like men and play for the man. enough is enough. Really hits it home that even the greatest of motivators and teachers need receptive pupils. You can be the greatest teacher and motivator alive, but it the student is unwilling to take anything upon themselves then there is nothing you can do. Kalimba Edwards comes to mind. He had the physical tools but just couldn't -- or didn't do what he needed to -- to put it together on the field.

I also liked when he said that Marinelli, at this point, really needs just one thing: Time. Lets hope that the men on this team step up and play this season to allow Marinelli that time he needs to mold the Lions from a lump of wet soggy mud into a real brick of a playoff team.

30 "Lock" - Who Did We Decide?

I've tallied the lists, and there are some interesting things to be learned. First, the results by number of votes. Each player could, if picked by all who submitted lists, get a total of 12 votes.

Here is the "Total Lock" list garnering 12 votes apiece:

1. QB - Kitna
2. QB - Stanton
3. WR - Williams
4. WR - CJ
5. WR - Furrey
6. OT - Backus
7. OG - Mulitalo
8. C - Raiola
9. OT - Cherilus
10. DT - Redding
11. DT - Darby
12. DE - IAF
13. LB - Sims
14. CB - Kelly
15. CB - Bodden
16. PK - Hanson

In other words, over half of the list was unanimous. Needless to say, any players from the above 16 not on the final roster would definitely shock this fan community!

Next up we have the "99% Pure" group -- those tallying 11 of 12 votes:

1. DE - White
2. LB - Dizon
3. LB - Lenon
4. S - Alexander
5. P - Harris

So we made it through a total of 21 of our 30 "Locks" with just those getting all, or only missing one vote. Now we move to "Missed a Couple, but that's OK" (9 or 10 votes)

1. QB - Orlovsky
2. RB - K. Smith
3. DT - Fluellen
4. S - Bullocks
5. S - D. Smith
6. LS - Mulbach
7. TE - Gaines
8. OG - Peterman

Yes, I know that brings us to a grand total of....29 The next highest vote getter, in the coveted 30th spot is:

Cliff Avril with 7 votes.

The "Got votes, but not of Confidence" group is still likely to make the 53, but as this list has shown, it could be adios:

1. CB - Fisher (6 votes)
2. FB - Felton (4 votes)
3. TE - D. Campbell (4 votes)
4. OT - J. Scott (4 votes)
5. FB - Bradley (3 votes)
6. DT - L. Moore (2 votes)
7. CB - K. Smith (2 votes)
8. OT - Foster (1 vote)
9. WR - McDonald (1 vote)
10. OG - Ramierez (1 vote)
11. LB - A. Lewis (1 vote)
12. DE - Devries (1 vote)

So all in all, after looking at 87 players, we have determined 30 (realistically 29 strong) that we believe are "locks" to be on the final 53. We also identified 12 that are close to locks, but maybe not so safe as it may seem...

By position group, I found some interesting trends:

QB -- It is apparent the 3 QB's on the roster are fighting for pecking order, not roster spots. And don't be fooled -- both Orlovsky and Stanton are going to get a lot of work, and a lot of looks in the ifseason workouts and camp -- as well as the preseason. Whoever shows they have "it" will be #2 behind Kitna, and the other guy will be looking at a harder road to retain a roster spot next ifseason. Kitna's only got a couple seasons left at best, and both Orlovsky and Stanton know if neither of them shows enough progress this ifseason, there will be a new guy to contend with in camp next year -- either a veteran or another draft pick; neither of them really want that, so I see them working their tails off to improve, and then improve some more to keep one-upping each other. This can only lead to each of them being pushed as far as talent will take them. Competition at its' best

WR -- One surprising thing was McDonald not getting more than one vote. I'll admit, I left him off my final list - only because I felt there were more secure options. What this really tells us, I think, is 2 things: Furrey may not be as safe as we think, and there is going to be a heck of a battle for those 4th and 5th WR spots.

RB -- one RB. ONE. That says it all about the Lions' backfield situation. It is not lacking talent, but there are different skills sets, situations, and even will be effected by the outcome of other position battles such as WR, and KR/PR, and what special teamers make it from other position groupings. RB will be one of the major positions to watch this ifseason. I agree that, if he keeps on working, K. Smith is "safe" -- but every one the RB will really be humping it not only for depth battles, but to prove they belong on the roster.

O-Line -- May sound crazy, but did anyone else notice that the starting line (2T, 2G, and C) were 5 of the locks? There will be competition on the line, but my guess is that Backus-Mulitalo-Raiola-Peterman-Cherilus is the starting O-Line against Atlanta week 1, barring an exceptional camp by Ramierez, Scott, or Foster. Of those, Ramierez may be able to push Mulitalo or Peterman -- either due to age or skill accordingly.

D-Line -- Again, I am amazed that, essentially, we locked in the 4 Dline starters (IAF-Redding-Darby-White), as well as 2 rotational players (Avril and Fluellen). That would mean there is only one DE and one DT spot open for competition in camp. That should lead to some fierce fighting among the other 9 or so guys currently on the roster at Dline.

CB -- From weakness to strength. Bodden-Kelly-Fisher at Nickel -- again, starters for week 1. That again only leaves 1 or possibly 2 spots open for K.Smith, Wilson, and whoever else is left to fight over. Another weak area that has starters with enough talent to lock up their spots -- yet are not lacking for qualified backups vying for position. Could still be stronger, but it appears the cards are dealt here already too.

S -- Wow. Pearson definitely didn't win any fans this ifseason. Throw in our apparent confidence in Bullocks-Alexander-Smith to get it done, then you have one heck of a battle for the one other S spot on the roster. Pearson, Body, Campbell...lot of guys vying for one backup spot, and ST play will again be a huge factor -- especially with 2 young starters, and a savvy veteran leading the way. Got a gut feeling that Pearson is still the 4th S, and may push for a more prominent roel if either Alexander or Bullocks falters.

LB -- I think our locks of 3 LB comes down to the fact most of us are convinced that even if Dizon wins the starting MLB position in camp or preseason, that Lenon will stick either as the starting SLB or at worst back-up MLB. However, the fact we only chose 3 LB out of a probable 7 on the final roster again attests to the talent the Lions have brought in to strengthen the LB corps -- just to name a few, vying for back-up weakside and starting SS, and backup MLB or the 7th spot are: Fincher, Gardner, Campbell, Lewis, Cannon, Davis...and there are more. some of those guys aren't going to make it.

Kicking Unit -- Confidence still runs high in out kicking trio of PK Hanson, P Harris, and LS Mulbach. If there is one unit comprised of players respected at their relative positions around the league, this is it. Any one of these players would be an immediate upgrade over their current situation for about 3/4 of the teams in the league. None of them would be unemployed long -- and the Lions have smartly gotten them all wrapped up long term. Stability on on this unit is key, and is present. No competition needed -- although I am afraid that Hanson is very close to edging into not-so-safe-as-a-lock-anymore territory. It is only a matter of time and a few more game winners before, in a season or two, the Lions are facing that task of picking a kicker that has to be done once every 15 -20 years. Of all the teams, the Lions have had the best luck in their history in the NFL hands down when it comes to consistency at this position.

From this point, as we approach the cut-downs, our "30 Lock" is safe from guesses as to who will be released. Should one of them shockingly get cut, then...umm...well, they weren't such a lock after all and I'll have to call Guido my bookie back and try to talk my way out of it. Ummm....better call him now -- just in case. After all, this is the Ifseason -- and no one knows what ifs will happen.

editors note: I was kidding about the bookie. Not a gambler at all, actually. Went to the Casino for my 18th Birthday with my Grandparents. They wanted to be sure we all learned early that if you can't afford to piss away what you brought with you, don't go in the casino door. Gave me $20 to gamble with. Won over $50 on the third pull of the quarter machine. Pocketed it and said I was ready to go. Know when to run away. But, since we'd only been there under 5 minutes, I got $5 in nickles and played those for about 45 minutes. Then I left with $20 bucks birthday money, $45 gambling money, and the secure knowledge I was not a gambler, but more of a calculated risk taker. Not that I'm timid by any means, but I needed much better odds than the slots, that's for sure. After all, an opportunity once lost is lost forever. Only by moving on to the next opportunity and learning from the past and not dwelling on it can you be successful. Those who focus only on opportunities they missed, will fail to realize that new ones are showing up all the time -- if we but reach out...