Punch

Actually, it was with the Steelers of the '70s that the usage of performance enhancing drugs first became prevalent in professional sports. It's pretty well known, in fact Joe D. talks about it quite a bit when he appears on WGR.

There was a thread about this issue (not specifically the NY Times article) awhile back. I though it was in poor taste, but to be honest... it is one of the iconic moments in sports history, not just the Giants' personal story. I can't bring myself to get worked up about this now that I've had time to consider it. Whether or not they display the jersey, even the actual jersey, Jints fans and Bills fans alike will look at that game the same way, regardless. Displaying the jersey doesn't change the events of the game or opinions about it. So whatever. I couldn't imagine hanging David Treadwell's Broncos jersey in a Bills history display case at the Ralph detailing the run to 4 AFC Championships. If it floats their boat let them have it.

Well, there's a depth chart and somebody needs to be "named" starter. It doesn't seem to really matter who is technically the starter for this team as they will all be featured depending on the opponent and situation. But "naming" Lynch the starter insures his name is out there, like I said, for perceived trade value. I'm certain other teams (as well as the media) will take in consideration the fact that Lynch isn't being used by a last place team struggling on offense when assessing his potential value. I'm certain the Bills have been contacted by teams other than Green Bay (maybe New Orleans or Seattle) and they're in no rush to ship him out.

How is it possible anyone could think that in 20 years time "Spygate" (not to mention the numerous instances of HGH usage and the allegations of former players being threatened and intimidated into steroid use by the coashing staff) will completely be forgotten? Pete Rose hasn't "cheated" on baseball in approximately 20 years and the debate on whether or not he be allowed entrance to the Hall of Fame is raging as strong as ever. When one thinks of "Shoeless" Joe Jackson the 1918 Black Sox Scandal immediately comes to mind--- and that's 92 years ago. These are all different circumstances, no argument there; but the fact remains once a controversy becomes associated with a player/team/et al the two become inextricably linked. The 1918 Chicago White Sox may have been the greatest baseball team in the history of the sport, and their record prior to the '18 Series should be held high as a testament to this fact. But they are forever tainted, even "Shoeless" Joe, who by all accounts was not on "the take". What kind of Bills fan would want their team and city to willingly be tainted in that way? How desperate to be linked with a championship can you be if you're willing to also be linked to a stain on the integrity of the sport? Ridiculous. If anything, the stink from this area of Patriots football will grow more pungent in the years to come, not less so.

That's true, but it took him awhile. Because QBs are generally expected to succeed much more quickly (probably due to the exorbitant salaries) in today's NFL he would have been declared a bust and (possibly) out of the league. The 2010 equivalent would be if Alex Smith went down with an injury in San Francisco and David Carr took over and lead them to a Super Bowl title and then another in 3 years. Plunkett's resurgence was crazy and truly one of the great stories in NFL history.

I think Al Davis used to do this in the '70s!

You may be right. But I don't think it's crazy to assume utilizing Lynch in a starter's role is an effective way to raise his profile in 2010 for potential trade offers. Not prioritizing the opportunity to "showcase" him exactly, but so long as the Bills offensive assets are in the backfield they may as well get the most out of them on the field. Without a doubt Spiller should be a bigger part of the offense. It may take a back like him a few more carries to properly get into the flow of the game. Bringing him along slowly is okay, but invisibly is wrong for 1,000 different reasons.

The only one that sounds bitter in this thread is you. You started the thread, after all, so you're the one with the problem. If you really want documentation of NFL players, coaches, and front office personnel on record accusing the Patriots of cheating there is a plethora available for you to peruse. Why not go study that material rather than pick a fight with a group of people embracing reality? My opinion: The Bills have not been good enough to win consistently in this league since 1999. This is completely disconnected from whatever methods the Patriots employ in their preparations. The fact that they have literally been caught cheating by the league and reprimanded for it has no bearing on how well the Bills organization is run--- but I am not going to excuse the Pats for their cheating. Two separate issues, both disheartening to me for completely different reasons.

I think everyone else in this thread is a little confused about what point you're trying to make. Try reading the post you're responding to...

He looked pretty bad against Alabama last year, throwing 4 interceptions in a blowout loss, and he also had an 0-4 overall record in SEC road games. If he can move the ball this week and play with "guts and determination" (which is admittedly hard to quantify) even in a loss (can't really put the onus of beating the no.1 ranked team in the country on Mallett) then I'd definitely be on board. My only concern is his footwork and release... the way he sometimes holds onto the ball for too long and can't seem to get out of his own way worries me that he's Bledsoe 2.0. But, I'm definitely in love with his arm, fearlessness,, and overall potential.

Honest to god, I think if he started for the Bills this week he would give us a better chance of beating New England than any QB on our roster. He looks like an NFL QB, in part, because Harbaugh's offense is a sophisticated (but not flashy) pro style offense. Not meaning that he's all appearance, but that he has developed under a sophisticated pro style system. It's a good point as to whether or not he meets the Buddy Nix/Bill Parcells criteria for drafting QBs... of course he falls short in number of starts, but he meets everything else. And unlike Mallett, he has excelled when playing top ranked teams. His performance against USC on the road last year was incredible, and not just stat wise. He drove them up and down the field and made Taylor Mays look bad on a bullet TD right in front of him in the end zone. He responds well to pressure, has an excellent pocket presence, knows when to scramble (he's no Vick but he certainly can make plays with his legs), and can "make all the throws".

I understand, but those articles don't really reflect the media's QB opinions "at this point", more like the offseason. Still, I do agree with you for the most part (QBs are notoriously difficult to accurately grade, especially early in the season) except I would say Luck is more or less thought of as far and away the best and the others are all vying for a distant 2nd place. Every other QB has at least one major flaw (Mallett's footwork for one), but Luck's only "flaw" is that he is a junior this season, so expectations are that he will return for his senior year of eligibility. This has focused most of the draft talk on those expected to participate in the 2011 draft.

I agree with you that it's way too early to tell just who will emerge as the best QB of 2010. But, only one of your links provides analysis based on the current season. One of your links is 2 months old, another from April 2010 and the first from March 2010. And each of them seem to indicate Andrew Luck as the real deal, the only caveat being that, as a sophomore, he can potentially grow into an even better QB. But anything can happen, and he can certainly implode at some point and drop off of everyone's radar come draft time like so many other preseason heroes.

I thought there was a near consensus that Andrew Luck is the most talented and NFL ready QB in college football? The only question is whether or not he decides to declare in 2011. If not, then the remaining QBs eligible for the 2011 draft are a mixed bag. If Mallet performs against Alabama this weekend as Locker did vs. Nebraska last week then the QB crop looks even weaker.

I think if Edwards had gotten knocked out with a concussion and Fitzpatrick came in and lit it up (as Vick had done) there would be no argument. As it stands, I do agree with Gailey's decision to replace Trent with Fitz, but it's not exactly apples to apples.

According to WGR's Paul Hamilton, Roscoe was officially the #2 WR in the Green Bay game and that will continue heading into New England. The change was apparently made following the opener against Miami.

No wonder Brohm was considered to be the #1 QB prospect in 2007 had he come out early. Damning with faint praise, that's for sure.

Howard, and he did fairly well power blocking in the run game and pulling right on a slot reverse by Parrish for a 1st down on 3rd and 2.

I think the "trade talks" that are "intensifying" being referred to by Wilson are amongst fans and rumors circulating in the media, not necessarily between the two teams themselves. It's a misleading title to a fluffy article.

Alex Van Pelt? I remember in 2001 he threw for 300 yards and 3 TDs at home against the Jets. Is that why King was talking about him? Because, who cares about any of the things he thinks he thinks? Last year following the Week 1 loss in New England he was gushing about Trent Edwards. At this point, I'll take Van Pelt under center.

I truly want to like Jake Locker but there is just not enough evidence that he's the real deal. I hope Andrew Luck declares this season and subsequently falls to us, wherever we pick. Howeveer, even though I am relatively confident in Buddy Nix/Doug Whaley/Chan Gailey... after so many dismal years of draft failure, I really don't know if the Bills should be allowed to make a selection in the first round. They may need a 12 step program.

Someone should send a tweet to Pat Moran about buying some billboard space.

It certainly sounds a lot like the team that regressed from 8-8 and barely missed the playoffs in 2000 to 3-13 in 2001. The roster remained largely the same, however: completely transforming the defensive scheme, losing veteran playmakers on both offense and defense, a group of unimpressive QBs, new coaching staff and front office personnel, etc. Hopefully this time the rebound will be monitored more competently.

I absolutely agree. Trent is more than likely shell shocked and beyond reclamation at this point. I think Chan is simply kicking all the tires... in other words, he needed to be sure that Trent was completely fried before moving on to Plan B. Of course, if he remains the starter for too long, this could unfortunately not be the case. I hope he has seen enough after 2 weeks.

I understand completely how you feel, of course, because I was as optimistic as anyone. Strangely (and perhaps perversely) approximately one hour after the game I started to feel optimistic about next week at New England. I mean, the Pats didn't look that great and...