Punch

HAW!!! This post is a tremendous example of preparation meeting opportunity.

I think the main argument for this is: what team is going to outright starting job to Alex Smith? One possibility in all this (though highly doubtful) is that Baltimore decides they can't afford Flacco and then make a play for Smith.

http://www.buffaloru...chuck-driesbach "Per two separate reports, the rest of the coaching staff hires could be announced as soon as today. The website FootballScoop.com - which was the first to report on the Bills' interest in Pettine last week - and Brent Axe of Syracuse.com both said on Sunday evening that hirings could be announced Monday; both also threw the names of new coaches into the mix."

If he was a Colts fan 25 years ago, he might have something on us in regards to anguish.

That's been the Bills motto for nearly 20 years.

They "probably won't" but only because it is an exceedingly rare occurrence in the NFL, not because long dismissed GMs did so 11-15 years ago and it didn't go as planned, "Dude".

IIRC, market size generally only takes US figures into consideration. If the US-Canada border were only a state border, then the Bills would be close to top 5 in market size.

The coach should also be factored into any evaluation of the GM.

I see this question asked whenever apples are compared to other kinds of apples on this board as a way of dismissing the idea. What would John Butler in 1998 and Tom Donahoe in 2002 have anything to do with Buddy Nix and Doug Whaley in 2013? If anything, there's reason to believe the front office may be much more aggressive than before and even recent past offseason activity will not be a good indicator of what to expect.

I definitely didn't participate in the Wilson discussions on TSW at the time or generally read very much about him, predraft. It seems like it didn't take a great deal of digging to kick conventional wisdom right in the nuts. Hopefully the Bills brain trust continues to stay ahead of the curve, as they have thus far this offseason.

That's true. I had hoped his footwork was holding him back in regards to both arm strength and accuracy, but it is either too late or David Lee couldn't get it done in a single season (he had suggested it take approximately 6 weeks, IIRC). That ship has sailed.

Growing pains, essentially. It's true of our sports teams as they rebuild and it's true of social norms as they evolve.

What is meant by "mandating gay history", anyhow? A public acknowledgement of the contributions made to this country by homosexuals? I would see this as a reversal to longstanding repression and nothing more. No one is being stopped from "making nativity scenes". Public property being appropriated for promoting one particular religion appears pretty innocuous, unless you happen to be a non-Christian not afforded that same privilege. I think you know that. Public policy is typically directed by public opinion--- with local concerns having more sway over local govt. It is utterly disingenuous to suggest that historical pockmarks such as Jim Crow are "on the level" with local politics. FWIW, I don't really disagree with this for the most part, although you likely think I'm merely "acting in accordance with" political correctness. Many of these supposed intrusions on freedom are nothing more than clumsy attempts to right historical wrongs by well meaning but ill directed local politicians and administrators. I don't believe it is quite the crisis that you are making it out to be, but rather a wave of sudden "awareness". A lot of it is BS, there's no question. But intelligent and informed citizens with common sense need to speak up more often in the public discourse to help foster a balance between the 2 opposing viewpoints.

It's incredible that so many NFL decision makers are so beholden to ancient bias and rhetoric. It's no wonder the same franchises fail, year after year--- yes, including our Bills.

Are you sure you're not the one that espousing the above 1st bolded? As for the 2nd bolded, yes it appears the culture has shifted, but not necessarily to some effete liberal latte sipping namby pamby New Age collectivist state that seeks to lay constraints on our freedoms. The shift is in the recognition that this is no longer strictly a White Nation. Look, in my mind, a Christmas Tree is a Christmas Tree. It's patently ridiculous to refer to it as a "Holiday Tree". But it's also ignorant to pretend we're all the same.

Which part? The threatened "freedoms" specifically mentioned by Just in Atlanta--- "California mandating gay history. Colorodo mandating that private daycare centers must carry dolls that represent at least three different races. A RI town banning daddy-daughter dances. Schools calling Christmas trees holiday trees. Municipalities banning Nativity scenes. Universities banning the word freshman. Universities banning certain words and requiring that students take inclusion training. Kids getting expelled for hugs and drawing guns. Censorship of various books. The Rooney Rule." If these "restrictions" were not placed on our "freedoms" they would arguably be considered unchecked restrictions on gays, non-Christians and minorities. It cuts both ways but it apparently does not matter. As for the 2nd part: it does matter from what authority "limits on freedom" are being placed. The policies of local government & universities (as well as other private institutions) are generally swayed by public opinion. The federal govt. enforcing bans on personal freedoms is another issue altogether and would constitute cause for alarm.

One detail I don't recall reading/hearing much about with regards to Wilson predraft (maybe it was prevalent, I didn't exactly read a ton about him) was his wingspan, hand size and high point of delivery--- these are all factors which essentially negate the height disadvantage. Although that wouldn't necessarily serve as a surefire predictor in evaluating QB prospects with less than ideal height.

Some of these "freedoms" are restricting (as both you and Just in Atlanta have specified) gays, non-Christians and ethnic minorities . I suppose that's ok though. I should add, the bit about "asking on whose authority you are entitled to act"--- which entity is responsible for a "ban"is a pretty obvious tell as to whether or not freedoms are legitimately being threatened or if it's merely an example of local yokels caving to civic pressure.

Huh? These don't appear to be actual freedoms that are being taken away. I agree that PC hawks have gone too far in certain respects, but it's quite another thing to suggest even basic freedoms are being threatened here. At best, these issues can be considered "privileges". Further irony.

Sincere question because I don't know the answer: are any of these bans mandated by the federal govt.? Local govts. generally govern based on local community standards and opinion--- or rather, they should. I guess publicly displaying a nativity scene on govt. property isn't something I'd consider a "freedom". However, if private citizens were "banned" from displaying such nativity scenes on private property then that would be a concern. Is that the case?

Some of these examples are silly and do speak to a larger case that can be made against the "PC police", while some arguably enhance a climate of acceptance for some minorities. Literally none "limit" freedom in any capacity.

For better or worse, it has already been acknowledged that Marrone informed the previous staff that they will not be retained going forward.

??? This is fairly gargantuan leap in logic, and exactly the sentiment to which I was referring. A: "Redskins" is a racial epithet and remains offensive to many Native Americans/Indians B: Where will this slippery slope end? Banning SpongeBob from our children's schools??? Why does one logically lead to the other?

"Circling the wagons" isn't offensive anymore than the word "blitz". Where to draw the line is really pretty obvious, isn't it? Implying that society will devolve into some form of martial law due to a "slippery slope" is an overreaction.

This is a lot if rhetoric though, isn't it? I understand what you're saying to a degree, but I'm not sure it describes any posters in this thread. It is also a stereotype of a certain type of "hippie dippie" New Ager. I'm not sure it's fair to paint the opposing viewpoint with such broad strokes anymore than it would be for me to attempt to define you with a paranoid Fox News far right brush. I do understand. FWIW, I am also generally annoyed by PC correctness. There are posters in this thread that appear "threatened" by the very nature of the conversation, and not necessarily you, to clarify.