SageAgainstTheMachine

Baseball will always be my favorite sport, but the Bills are the team I care about the most. I got into hockey about 7 years ago, though I'm not what you'd call passionate about it. I'm a golfer so I love to watch any Sunday round when the competition is good, but I don't really have a favorite player.

Spicy brown mustard on a turkey sandwich with a few green olives to top it off, mmmmmm. Horseradish is great too and I also love garlic mayo.

A few years ago with Lalime, Miller's injury ruined the season. This year I believe the Sabres can survive (and even thrive) while he's out.

DOMINANT

Since we're talking Sufjan, how about "Chicago."

I'm gonna go into grammar police mode. Three mistakes I see on TBD all the time for some reason. 1. Rooting =/= "Routing" (ie. I'll be routing for the Patriots tonight) 2. Dominant =/= "Dominate" (ie. He was good, but it wasn't a dominate effort) 3. Worst =/= Worse (ie. That was the worse game I've ever seen!) Why, people, why?

Furthermore, gone are the days when the #1 QB in the draft becomes the highest paid player in football, due to the new CBA.

I liked that. It's a great song and Weezer's version is awesome in its technical proficiency, especially vocals and drums. Where the cover falls short is that it has a distinct laboratory feel, whereas the original (a top 10 song of in rock history to me, so I'm biased) is bursting at the seams with a barely contained wildness. Thanks for posting.

I've always thought that the melody to Zeppelin's When the Levee Breaks was simultaneously kick ass and haunting. I don't know if you'd call it a bridge or a secondary motif to the base melody, but the part starting at 2:30 of the vid just gets me every time.

Not to belittle the ugliness in Happy Valley, but one of the ancillary effects will be that the Helen Lovejoy "think of the children" paranoia will increase for a while.

Yeah, no kiddin

Pffft. You can't see Jupiter. It's gas and it's like a bazillion miles away.

That may be the public front, but I think something more sinister is happening. Keep in mind, I said the same thing about the Atlantic Ocean just a few weeks before Katrina. Watch the tides. Closely.

What? Wasn't that like the first long return of the year? Extra points are for the birds. I'm still waiting for a head coach brave enough to go for an all 2-point conversion strategy, only kicking the PAT to win a game or gain an extra score advantage (ie to go ahead by 9 instead of 8, or 17 instead of 16).

The body moves as one. There's not much that you can do effectively with a bum shoulder.

While we're on the subject, is anybody else a little paranoid about how the Moon has just been sorta...circling...for all these years? What exactly is it planning?

The problem is that a lot of the people on this board built up Sunday's game as if it was the Superbowl. When you push that many chips into the center of the table, you're gonna be upset when you lose the hand. 5-3 is the reality and 5-3 isn't a bad place to be.

There might be something to that, yes.

I was at a Yankees game a couple of years ago. There was a girl (Maybe 14) with a Jason Varitek shirt on a couple of rows in front of me. There was a jerk 2 seats the left of us who called her a "Red Sox fan B word". During the next lull in the action, I calmly leaned over my seat and informed him, "Talking smack to that girl...if it happens again, I'll bite your nose off." Didn't hear another peep out of him the whole game. He thought I was insane.

a) The Jets make a lot of QBs look bad. I'm not excusing Fitz' play on Sunday, but better quarterbacks have utterly failed against the defense over the last couple seasons. b) The whole "blueprint for success" concept that you're espousing here is nothing more than a platitude. If following the Jets gameplan was so easily done, everybody would do it. But the truth is that most teams don't have the quality CB play that the Jets do. When you can shut down a team's #1 and #2 wide receivers with just two defensive players, life is hard. Most teams can't do that.

You're a quality poster and I respect your opinions. This passage, though, is where we fundamentally disagree. You're basically saying, for the losses, "They lost." For the wins, "They won but ________." Why hedge on the wins but not the losses? The losses concern me too, but I won't discredit the wins. I've always been of the mind that a win is a win and a loss is a loss. If there's a big-time mitigating factor, I'll take it into account. I don't think something nebulous like saying the Eagles hadn't found themselves yet represents a significant mitigating factor. I don't think it's fair to assume that the Eagles would handle us today, as it seems you're implying. Just my opinion.

Remember, either the Jets or Patriots will be 5-4 next week with a 2-2 divisional record. Everybody seems rather certain those two teams will make the playoffs, but one will be in risky territory after Sunday. Hopefully the Bills aren't there with them.

Isn't it funny how the waiting-for-the-other-shoe-to-drop pessimists only think that losses "expose a team for what they are"? Yes, winning big upsets against the Patriots and Eagles is just something that randomly occurred, but one bad loss against the Jets unearths some latent suckitude Oh, but I forgot. The Jets game happened most recently, so it's the only thing that counts. Trust me, I suffer no delusions about how bad yesterday sucked. But it was one game, and it certainly doesn't negate all the positive things that have happened this year.

Yep. Bad things happen when people behave idiotically, whether those things are intentional or not. Still, titling this post "OWS throws Grandma down the steps" is just dumb.

This is true, but in 4 out of 8 games (Chiefs, Bengals, Eagles, Redskins) the Bills' opponent was playing some pretty serious catch-up and primarily passing.