vincec

OK. Who has a worse QB situation for 2018 than the Bills, in your opinion? Maybe McCarron will be great and Allen will quickly become a star, but right now they have a guy with 5 starts who couldn't beat out Andy Dalton as their starter, with Allen projected to be a ways out from being ready to play.

How much "journalism" is really possible in the sports section? Especially in the off season? Its 90% op ed and always has been.

Thanks for the information. Unfortunately, from TBD they all show as locked behind a paywall and the only way you know if it's actually free is by clicking on it, which obviously I didn't do.

The greatest post game press conference of all time, IMO. The Bills are an off season dynasty.

If it were just the drops I'd be more optimistic. He seemed to have trouble adjusting to balls and making plays on the passes thrown to him. The game seemed a little to fast for him. Given that he's not super big or super fast, he really need to master the receiving craft if he's going to make it.

This is untrue. Just a couple of days ago there was an article behind your paywall recapping the interview that Bill Parcells did on One Bills Live, which is available for free on the Buffalo Bills website. John Murphy and Steve Tasker conducted an interview Bills Parcells and the interview is available for free with the full audio posted on the Buffalo Bills website. The BN then recaps the interview and sells the recap it as part of the Blitz package. It's not that big a deal to me, but I wanted to point this out.

They finished dead last in the NHL, so yeah, it's hard to get too excited about a draft pick.

This list makes me feel a lot worse, not better. There aren’t many “franchise” QBs on that list. And if you throw out the guys before 2000, when QB completion percentages weren’t so inflated then there are basically none except for maybe Matt Ryan at 59.9%.

I want to see a draft analysis where a team says that they took a player with the appropriate pick given his ability. You know that it must happen most of the time, but instead it's always "we can't believe he was still on the board" and "we weren't expecting him to fall to us" etc. It's pretty funny actually.

The problem with getting into a relationship with a subordinate at work goes beyond the issues it creates with that subordinate. It also affects your ability to do your job as a leader because other coworkers will question your motives for giving assignments, criticisms, raises and/or promotions to that person. This will be the perception whether there is bias there or not. In fact, it's probably impossible to even know if you're being biased because of the complete loss of perspective that this type of thing creates. I get the argument that we spend most of our time at work and where are we supposed to meet people and all that, but relationships between co-workers need to be restricted to relationships between employees who are on equal footings, IMO. And even those need to be taken on with extreme caution.

No.

Did they last 17 years? Your standards are very, very low.

Well, I remember back to the Chuck Knox years, so not that young. They have never been this bad for this long before. Sure. It's always someone else's fault. Not the president of the organization though. He is blameless.

How could she do any worse? His time with the organization has coincided with the worst period in it's history. The Sabres too for that matter, although that started before he took over.

Not true, according to Danny Amendola another tread on the board.

Roethlisberger has the rings and the stats, so he has to be the clear #1. You can take your pick between Rivers and Manning. Rivers does have better stats but he has had a lot better offensive talent around him than people are giving credit for. He should probably have done better than he has. On the other hand, Manning’s teams won those SBs in large part due to their defense and he’s never had the regular season success that Rivers has. So it’s personal preference, IMO. I would go with Manning. My thinking is that at least I know I can win a Super Bowl with him at QB because he’s done it. With Rivers it’s just speculation.

I think you mean Thurman Thomas.

Maybe, but top 10 is hard. The top 5 (in your order of preference) have to be Brown, Simpson, Campbell, Sanders and Payton. Then you have guys Smith, Dickerson, Peterson, Faulk, Riggins, Allen, Tomlinson, Sayers. Thomas needs to be ahead of 4 of them to be #10. No game should ever come down to the last play, but they frequently do. No one plays a perfect game. I'm just tired hearing about how Thurman should have had more carries, Levy should have run another play, Reich didn't get the laces turned, Talley didn't turn up, etc. Just make the kick.

Just make the kick.

You mean a top 10 pick like #12? I'll bet Rex Ryan would have taken Watson. Food for thought.

Ivy league schools have a "needs blind" admission policy. They don't ask for your financial information until after they've accepted you. They then put together a package of aid, work-study, loans, etc. (depending on the university) so that you can theoretically afford to go there. So athletes are recruited and then get aid when they are accepted to the school. It's not exactly a scholarship, which they don't offer, but it can be a lot of cheap money. This is unquestionably true. I went to an Ivy league school as well and I used to marvel at the student athletes. I mean, I was getting 6 hours sleep a night as it was and these kids were practicing and training per the schedule you indicate and then trying to do the same academic work as me on top of it. Most of the ones that I knew struggled. It's not just tough time wise, but physically. You are tired enough in college, forget after all the practicing and working out...

Another Whaley bust.

B- or maybe C+. When your team needs a QB and has needed one for most of 20 years and you don't even draft one in the top 3 rounds of the draft and some of the QBs taken in those rounds are looking like very good prospects then you have failed. You can pickup all the CBs, OTs and LBs you want but it won't help, IMO.

A power running game with big passing plays downfield when the opposition brings extra defenders in the box sounds great until you get behind or need to move the ball late in the game to win it. Then it doesn’t really work. To me, that’s the biggest problem with the Roman/Lynn 1960s/70s style offense. Tyrod could run that kind of offense pretty well but it’s questionable whether you can win a championship playing that way these days.

I guess not.