TimGraham

So much for that, eh?

Kielbasa and pierogies immediately come to mind. But there should be more than that. Let me think.

I will be there. Will I see you and the gang?

I focus so much on the AFC East that I sometimes feel I don't have a comprehensive grasp on certain questions, and this would be one of those instances. But from the AFC East, I think Brian Schottenheimer (Jets offensive coordinator) and Todd Bowles (Dolphins asst. head coach) are head coach material.

Isn't that always the way?

I'm trying not to sound flippant when I say this ... But I have no idea what Ralph is thinking or what more he's willing to put up with. There just doesn't seem to be a long-range plan at all. They come off to me as an organization that wings it from year to year. Sometimes you see a struggling franchise but can detect the master plan -- as frustrating as it might be to wait for it. But I can't find that here.

I agree with many of your points, if not all. But the question was how appealing the Bills head coaching job really is. When there are only 32 of something and dozens of people want one of those, any opening still is quite appealing. Can they succeed once they take the job ... That's a different question. But maybe that's why you need to look at eager young coaches who don't know what they're signing up for.

There are only 32 head coaching jobs in the NFL, and while the Bills' opening would rank near the bottom in terms of prestige, there are a lot of coordinators out there who would kill to get their shot. Consider this: Prior to last year's playoff run, Rex Ryan probably would have taken the first job offered.

You guys are too much.

I agree that he doesn't have IT.

Not a dumb question at all. The perception around the league is that it mostly has to do with control. When you hire an up-and-coming coach or a retread, he's beholden to you. An established football mind has his own ideas and would insist on the latitude to execute his plan.

The players aren't good, and it's because the front office didn't collect enough. I don't have as much of a problem with Tom Modrak as others. I think the draft picks have been pretty good, and some decisions have been made based not on the scouting reports but a specific need, want or direction from Levy, Jauron, etc. The main problem to me is keeping their good players when their contracts are up, bringing in free agents and having depth players who actually would make another NFL team.

Edwards moved the offense just fine in Weeks 1 and 2. Nobody was railing against him then. If the offense performed like that every week -- even if he didn't go deep and kept ignoring Owens and Evans -- I think fans would be satisfied with that. It wouldn't be high entertainment, but it would work.

No line.

The same as I did before the game. He's above average when he has a solid supporting cast. Decent tools, but not a guy who can carry a team.

I haven't heard anything about that and would be surprised if the Bills made that move, not only because they don't generally go after those types of high-profile coaches, but mostly because I have a feeling Bobby April will be the next head coach. That's my hunch. Not insider info.

I think the Bluto Blutarsky method works best in these situations.

He shouldn't be the coach anymore. That said, nobody can win with this group.

The reason it hasn't been asked is because I'm not. Read my work. I've defended him -- quite recently.

So then I guess you should see why there was some value in quoting her. I know what her reputation is. Where you should be inserting those little laughy emoticons is that you detected the whole purpose of my point yet still didn't comprehend it. Again, and I'll repeat for the last time. If I wanted to stomp my foot on Owens' news conference, I wouldn't have waited two days to do it. Kind of takes away the effect. Crying victim is where the problem lies, not in his decision to clam up on Sunday. Perhaps I didn't do a good enough job explaining that because people here can't seem to fathom the concepts are separate. But the fact you detected my Jemele Hill reference but still failed to grasp it shows me you'll never understand where I'm coming from. Thanks for the feedback.

The link to the tweets is right there in the story.

Not a double standard. I don't care if Harrison was still playing, many teams would admonish their players for tweeting like that. Just as the Dolphins did with Channing Crowder and the Jets did with David Clowney. Randy Moss and Wes Welker caught hell from Belichick for merely stating their offense MIGHT be better than it was in 2007. If a Patriot had sent that type of tweet to another player in the league -- I don't care if the target was Tony Mandarich -- Belichick would go ballistic. And I'm sure there were a lot of Sabres fans who thought that it was OK for Dominik Hasek to strangle Jim Kelley. Still doesn't mean you should act that way. It's about how you want your players to represent your organization. But Owens' tweets weren't facts, as you claim. He ridiculed Harrison for taking steroids. That wasn't why he was suspended. He was suspended for HGH. But Owens didn't merely point that out either. He posted at least five tweets in which he asked Harrison to ship him steroids to One Bills Drive. As a Bills fan, you're OK with a player reacting like that to a broadcaster 15 minutes after pretending to turn a new leaf with media who was right in front of him? Whatever leaf he's trying to turn, he lit on fire when he tweeted Harrison.

The Patriots aren't dead yet. I think this division already has turned into a two-team race. I think that's the story I find most fascinating. The Jets are full of fun, and the Patriots are the old guard.

I still haven't seen this hissy fit. I merely was pointing out the guy is playing the role of victim AFTER THE NEWS CONFERENCE. I don't care that he didn't say anything Sunday. Fine, let's move on. But he can't do that. As Jemele Hill pointed out today "I think Terrell Owens has a persecution complex." Since people seem to think I'm up in arms, listen to the tone of my voice when I discuss the situation on this ESPNEWS video clip of me being interviewed about it. http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/...loggers-blitz-2 Do I sound upset? Do I sound like I'm owed something? As I mentioned to Sal Maiorana on Monday after somebody said "Too bad T.O. didn't give you anything to work with" on Sunday: He gave us plenty. Whatever the opposite of a hissy fit is, that's what I'm throwing. Owens presents material for me to write about no matter what he does or says. People gobble it up. I couldn't be happier.

That doesn't mean it's a good idea to attack a network broadcaster. If Owens is trying to turn a new leaf and everybody thinks the way he handled himself with the Buffalo media after the game was admirable, then you don't slap him on the back and congratulate him for talking smack 15 minutes later on twitter. Which is it? Are you proud of him for staying composed, or do you love it that he's going after a broadcaster who doesn't play the game anymore? Avoid the drama, or court the drama?