All Activity

This is a voice from my childhood! When we moved away from Buffalo to Tulsa in the late 1960s when I was a kid, there was minimal opportunities to see the Bills live on television. So, many of my Bills memories from that era were highlight shows with THAT voice! Thanks so much for sharing this!

Seeing as I was correct with about 90% of the COVID stuff in real time and he is still wrong 3 years later, I will keep thinking for myself. Also my "conspiracy theory site" is data from the CDC, same source as him, but looking for different data points. But since you think I am a conspiracy theorist let me ask you why you think the death rate of all groups plummeted at the same time? Taking the shot or not the death rate plummeted across the board.

Fine. Pay him commensurate with Shakir's bargain contract, which might be on the table already. Shakir didn't ask to be paid like Ja'Mar Chase, and Cook should not be paid like Saquan. No, I would play hardball. He's saying, "Pay me more than I'm worth," so fairness has nothing to do with it. Let him sit for the first half of the season, see if he realizes he's blowing one of the four prime years he has left and not getting paid at all. If he wants to miss the whole season, fine, only franchise him next year and trade his selfish, me-first carcass. Every passing day of his holdout is more evidence he's no Buffalo Bill.

Rousseau was a pretty physical specimen coming out that needed to develop as a pass rusher. As it stands, he’s third in his draft class in career sacks, and the only two guys ahead of him are Kwity Paye and Micah Parsons. Jaelyn Phillips was seen as the more complete pass rusher but has not been able to stay healthy at all in Miami. Ultimately, I have no problem with drafting Rousseau and hoping he can develop. where I think the issue may eventually lie is paying him as they did and his performance not really changing. They doubled down on him. Maybe it will work and he will continue to improve, or maybe, they gave a B+ player an A- contract that won’t look great in 2 or 3 seasons. Its not dissimilar to Eddy, but Eddy flashed very hard his contract year or the year just after and showed the vision of his pass rusher ability imo.

Morgan Freeman voice: Maybe not.

Man, this is excellent from Hawes. Even after initial seal, he stayed engaged for another 10 years. Really encouraging and excellent stuff. With as much as Brady loves the jumbo / big sets, this has to have him drooling

I've read through but a small fraction of this thread and others on the board, but... The definitive statements, certain conclusions and overreactions based on ONE preseason game -- the FIRST preseason game, mind you -- are amusing, though not unexpected.

Hoax. A spike in death rate is relevant. And there was during COVID. The vax helped get those numbers back to normal.

I think you are wrong to place this solely at Beane/McDs feet. I think it’s impossible in the salary cap era to keep elite defenses together. Can you be effective over the years long term? Absolutely. But can you be consistently great? I don’t think so. on a fundamental level, to be a really great defense, you need next to no weak links and you need to stay outrageously healthy. And even then, it’s a lightning in the bottle outcome. Bill Belichick had several down years where he had to retool his defense. They were still good in some things, like TOs, but he had several bottom 10 finishes in a lot of categories. To me, that’s par for the course. Elite CBs can quickly fall off at 28-29. It’s just how it goes. Ultiamtely, I think it becomes an argument even more for positional value in the draft, and an argument for a less defensive focus. If the Bills hit on 50% of their defensive picks into plus starters, we may have another top 2-3 defense for a year or two before guys age out and fall off. Is that really worth the cost? I don’t know but there’s an argument there imo.

I hope we are close to seeing a deal get done with Cook. We need him out there this year. Big loss if he is disgruntled/tagged/nothing happens. He has earned it imo.

Democrats Learn What Consequences Are, and They Aren't Happy About It One of the more underappreciated aspects of the 2024 election is just how confident most Democrats were that they would win it. It seems like an eternity ago, but there was a time when the American left was all but certain Kamala Harris would be the next president. Who can remember the months-long proclamation of "joy" being a central theme of her campaign? Or "Brat summer," suggesting Harris had made inroads with pop culture that simply couldn't be defeated. I still remember having to repeatedly debunk reports on election day of massive turnout in Philadelphia that had supposedly sealed the deal for the then-vice president. That attitude was nothing new, though. Between 2021 and 2024, no action was taken by the Democratic Party that factored in the possibility that Donald Trump might be president again one day. Assuming that he'd surely be done this time, they didn't even consider the possible alternative outcomes of their crusade. But then he won, and like a child who angrily wonders how the hot stove burned him, the Democrats are now very unhappy that Trump is governing in light of their actions. I'm going to go ahead and skip the sugar-coating that some try to do regarding this topic. Is Donald Trump seeking retribution for how the Democratic Party weaponized the American judicial system to try to throw him in prison for the rest of his life? Yes. Yes, he is. Here's the best summation of the situation I've seen. You see, in life, when you do things, those things often produce specific repercussions. We call those "consequences," and you don't get to call a timeout from them the moment they arrive. Democrats seem to be under the impression that they can set new standards only to revert when those new standards devour them. Take the recent battle over redistricting, which has seen over 50 left-wing Texas legislators flee their state to stop the passing of a new congressional map that would eliminate five Democrat-held seats. For decades, the Democratic Party has used state power to draw some of the most gerrymandered maps in the nation. Some examples include Illinois, Maryland, California, New York, Massachusetts, and New Mexico. But when Texas Republicans decided they wanted to stop playing the game with their hands tied behind their back, Democrats screamed bloody murder. The same is happening regarding Trump's quest to hold people accountable for the political weaponization of the government. When Joe Biden used a special counsel to try to jail the current president on extremely specious legal grounds, that was spun as "no one is above the law." When Trump responds to that breaking of norms by investigating those who perpetrated it, suddenly it's a "threat to democracy." When Department of Justice officials and FBI agents used their power to hatch a conspiracy to try to take down the Democrats' primary political rival, they were just "doing their job." When Trump fires those leaders and agents as a result of their own decisions to politicize their offices, that's claimed to be "politicization." But really, what did Democrats think was going to happen? At what point in Trump's political career has he shown a penchant for letting things go? https://redstate.com/bonchie/2025/08/10/democrats-learn-what-consequences-are-and-they-arent-happy-n2192651

Brady's system is signifgantly better for Josh along with our offense than Dorsey's. We are getting more with less. I know that's a complicated to understand. Our 3rd down defense by year 2019 9th 2020 19th 2021 1st 2022 6th 2023 18th 2024 30th I know having all the information probably isn't as good as cherry picking. This isn't hard, you're serving lay ups.

Many people under 25 also have type 2 diabetes or other underlying conditions that would make them candidates to get the vaccine Quack. Also the mortality data is useless as they counted people who died with covid just the same as people who died from covid or covid complications. Garbage in, garbage out. Which was the entire point.

McDermott is a better regular season coach, and a substantially better post season coach. Schottenheimer had a .278 win percentage in the playoffs. Its fine if you dont like McDermott but he is a lot closer to Jim Harbaugh than he is Schottenheimer. At least make a fair comparison to make your point. I get he hasnt won the Superbowl, but its ignorant to discount how good he has been otherwise.

I assure you that YOU don’t want to do that.

Trump whining about “homegrown criminals” and the Capitol being a mess while he pardoned violent January 6 thugs is peak brain-melt hypocrisy.

But like you said, reports are that they are close, and it sounds like we're near the Williams deal... So it's about to be on Beane to step up and make it $11.5M or $12M or whatever slight difference there is and get it done. Doesnt sound from any report that Cook is holding strong at $15M. Big Baller Beane needs to be Bridge Builder Beane if we're this close. All reports are that they are close. So with that, I'm sure the discussion was more along the lines of "We'd love to have you out there, Jimbo", "Sorry coach, I cant risk injury until this deal gets done", "Understood. We'd still like to have you dress and be with the team", "No problem". McD understands this business as well. The players even more so. Nothing is getting fractured, especially Cook's leg.

Goodbye to DEI, crushed by the weight of its own hypocrisies by Victor Davis Hanson President Donald Trump’s executive orders banning diversity, equity and inclusion-related racial and gender preferencing have ostensibly doomed the DEI industry. But DEI was already on its last legs. Half of all Americans no longer approve of racial, ethnic or gender preferences. DEI had enjoyed a surge following the death of George Floyd and the subsequent 120 days of nonstop rioting, arson, assaults, killings and attacks on law enforcement during the summer of 2020. In those chaotic years, DEI was seen as the answer to racial tensions. {snip} Yet almost immediately, contradictions and hypocrisies undermined DEI. First, how does one define “diverse” in an increasingly multiracial, intermarried, assimilated and integrated society? DNA badges? The old one-drop rule of the antebellum South? Superficial appearance? To establish racial or ethnic proof of being one-sixteenth, one-fourth, or one-half “non-white,” employers, corporations and universities would have to become racially obsessed genealogists. Yet refusing to become racial auditors also would allow racial and ethnic fraudsters — like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and the would-be mayor of New York, Zohran Mamdani — to go unchecked. Warren falsely claimed Native American heritage to leverage a Harvard professorship. Mamdani, an immigrant son of wealthy Indian immigrants from Uganda, tried to game his way into college by claiming he was African American. Second, in 21st-century America, class became increasingly divergent from race. Mamdani, who promises to tax “affluent” and “whiter” neighborhoods at higher rates, is himself the child of Indian immigrants, the most affluent ethnic group in America. Why would the children of Barack Obama, Joy Reid or LeBron James need any special preferences, given the multimillionaire status of their parents? In other words, one’s superficial appearance no longer necessarily determines one’s income or wealth, nor defines “privilege” or lack thereof. Third, DEI is often tied to questions of “reparations.” The current white majority supposedly owes other particular groups financial or entitlement compensation for the sins of the past. Yet in today’s multiracial and multiethnic society, in which over 50 million residents were not born in the United States and many have only recently arrived, what are the particular historical or past grievances that would earn anyone special treatment? What injustices can recent arrivals from southern Mexico, South Korea or Chad claim, knowing little about, and experiencing no firsthand bias from, Americans, the United States, or its history? Is the DEI logic that when a Guatemalan steps one foot across the southern border, she is suddenly classified as a victim of white oppression and therefore entitled to preferences in hiring or employment? Fourth, does the word “minority” still carry any currency? In today’s California, the demography breaks down as 40% Latino, 34% white, 16% Asian American or Pacific Islander, 6% black, and 3% Other — with no significant majority and fewer whites than the Latino “minority.” Are Latinos the new de facto “majority” and “whites” just one of the four other “minorities?” Do the other minorities, then, have grievances against Latinos, given that they are the dominant population in the state? Fifth, when does DEI “proportional representation” apply, and when does it not? Are whites “overrepresented” among the nation’s university faculties, reportedly 75% white, when they comprise only about 70% of the population? Or, are whites “underrepresented” as college students, making up just 55% of them, and thus in need of DEI action to bump up their numbers? Black athletes are vastly overrepresented in lucrative and prestigious professional sports. To correct such asymmetries, should Asians and Hispanics be given mandated quotas for quarterback or point-guard positions to ensure proper athletic “diversity, equity and inclusion”? Sixth, DEI determines good and bad prejudices, as well as correct and incorrect biases. “Affinity” segregationist graduations — black, Hispanic, Asian and gay — are considered “affirming”. But would a similar affinity graduation ceremony for European-Americans or Jews be considered “racist”? Is a Latino-themed, de facto segregated house on a California campus considered “enlightened,” while a European-American dorm would be condemned as incendiary? In truth, DEI long ago became corrupt, falling apart under the weight of its own paradoxes and hypocrisies. It is a perniciously divisive idea — unable to define who qualifies for preference or why, who is overrepresented or not, or when bias is acceptable or unjust. And it is past time that it goes away. https://nypost.com/2025/08/10/opinion/goodbye-to-dei-crushed-by-the-weight-of-its-own-hypocrisies/

Marino/Shula called. They said, Atta Boy Sean

I see a lot of shoulder shaking but not violent enough with his hands

Yeah I'm on the pay Cook train as well. Just imagine what the offense looks like without him. It certainly is not breaking any records and could take a huge step backward

I've learned that Dane Jackson didn't get any better and Dion only plays well in pre-season when Josh is in.

I don't get why you spend a high pick on a guy to "set the edge". You need pass rushers 1st

Ah ok, so "the usual"