Punch

Since the day he was drafted, every time I hear Ashton Youboty's name I think of this late 70's Frank Zappa album--- Sheik Yerbouti

It's worth posting this reminder that Rex Ryan has a vested interest in giving Maybin as many chances as possible--- from Chris Brown's 9/29/10 blog at buffalobills.com shortly after the Jets re-signed him: Jets head coach Rex Ryan knows Aaron Maybin a bit more than the average NFL head coach that doesn’t have him on their roster. That’s because Ryan’s kids went to the same high school as Maybin in Baltimore when he was the Ravens’ defensive coordinator.

The need was there, so why wait? I think it's clear they wanted him... so they made sure they got him. Your rationale is shaky at best.

Of course the 3-4 experiment setback the D rebuild somewhat, but I'm having a hard time understanding why Tarvaris Jackson is a "panic move". Is every roster upgrade a panic move? They wanted him last year and now Seattle has made him available. Young and Thigpen aren't good enough. How is a backup QB a !@#$ing panic roster move???

If it were only about the abilities of 2 QBs I might be inclined to vote for Tebow, even with his obvious faults. The inevitable overwhelming circus that comes with Tebow means it's Jackson. We need a reality show at One Bills Drive like we need a !@#$ing hole in the head.

It's more notable for the WRs still on the roster, if nothing else.

Those are comparable to JP Losman's best season.

I had hopes for Vince Young, but unfortunately at this point, Tarvaris is an upgrade over both Young and Thigpen. I don't hate Tarvaris Jackson. But y'know, I don't love him. I have a burning apathy for him.

Nix actually coached TO in college and when he took over here as GM he didn't consider retaining him despite the fact Owens wanted to stay. It ain't happening, nor should it.

I was thinking the same thing. The talent is there and he looked close last year. It's worth keeping him around to see if he's got what it takes but probably not on the active roster.

If Prince Miller was on the bubble he likely played himself onto the cut list last night. He showed enough for practice squad consideration though, I'm sure.

I don't think it was the Bills' choice--- he wanted to be in Pittsburgh.

The defense will be a work in progress for the first few weeks. As many positives as we have seen thus far, things don't gel completely overnight--- or even over training camp with a new D coordinator and 3-4 new starters. I expect there to be several flashes of brilliance and a few speed bumps along the way so I'm not overly concerned with that drive, as ugly as it was. From my vantage point in Section 129 I can't speak to how often the starting D-line were out there, although they clearly came out when the Steelers reached the 15 after being out for several plays. Regardless, the front four rotation is another issue that needs to be ironed out. And yes, All Hail Kyle Williams! He should continue to be the biggest beneficiary of the Mario signing.

True enough. The real issue with that play was that Roethlisberger had as much time as he needed to allow the play to develop and deliver the ball precisely. I don't expect that to be a regular occurrence.

You shouldn't get blasted for the suggestion, because it was a perfectly reasonable assessment. This post is very likely accurate as well.

Hopefully the postgame presser sheds some light--- if the front four were gassed then I'm not sure why the DBs and LBs were the regular group. Nice--- my seats were in the opposite corner so it was difficult to tell how much space he was giving up--- then again, I just read a summary of the play and it was apparently Jonathan Dwyer, not Rainey. He's more of bruiser and not a shifty scatback which probably explains the excellent coverage.

That was Chris Rainey that beat Barnett down the sideline, right? It's a tough assignment for any LB--- that kid is slick, shifty and blazing fast. No excuses of course but it is a bit of a mismatch. I was at the game and it looked to me that the backup D-line--- Dwan Edwards, Spencer Johnson and Kyle Moore--- were in for most of that last long TD drive until the Steelers got down to the Bills 15 or so and then Mario, Kyle and company rotated in. I understand these guys are going to be rotated but is it really possible they'd stick the 2nd group out there in such a crucial situation or were they just being evaluated? That drive was embarrassing after an impressive start for the D.

What you're suggesting is almost certainly the literal definition of cheating. Whether or not it is commonplace in pro sports doesn't make the practice ethical.

That's a damn good question. He must have hidden Ralph's sugar free wafers back in the 70s. There's a case to be made that he belongs in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, to be honest.

How many posters in this thread think any pro sport is free of PEDs or other forms of fraud? Many wish that to be the case but I'd guess very few think it to be literally true

However, I find this to be problematic. If your son (or anyone) needs to take PEDs of any kind to "go pro" then he is simply not good enough to play professional sports. Taking the opportunity away from a better athlete is not ethical--- it's kind of ****ty. On one hand, I feel that there must be a level playing field, so if they were theoretically legalized, it would be theoretically acceptable. But on the other hand, I really like the concept of regular human beings born with a certain degree of natural athletic ability training themselves as close to the peak of perfection in their given sport and competing against one another is a beautiful thing. Things like stealing signs, or using spit to make a fastball jump are in the acceptable category in one sense, but chemically altering your body's makeup to unfairly stack yourself against another athlete is like watching the X-Men fight a group of firemen. They're both "heroes" but the firemen have a competitive disadvantage from the word go.

I haven't read every post in this thread so your point is taken--- it's possible there is some trolling going on that I'm unaware of.

How is this any different? Referring to posters that disagree with you as "crusaders" is still unflattering and insulting.

You want honest answers yet you paint those that disagree with you in this unflattering light? Nice.

I think the OP beat you to your suggestion