BillsFanInLV

Chad Jackson looks better than any Viking WR suiting up

Good Post Webster guy. I totally agree and also am counting the minutes until our opener. Go Bills!

Funny Brady's long, flowing locks probably obstructed his view.

I voted 'Yes' Before I read all this chatter. I was hoping he got 'hurt' by his wife Gisele. Her breaking his heart, leaving him and becoming my spouse was what 'hurt' meant to me.

Most of Shefter's picks were against the grain of his peers. Bills over Fins Skins over Cowboys Eagles over Packers Lions over Bears Chiefs over Chargers Seahawks over 49ers Raiders over Titans It's like his picks are from week one, 1988. I wonder if he is just picking all underdogs or if he really 'believes' in his picks?

Really? - I'm not even a 'guitar man' but I thought the music was totally fitting to what Spiller was doing on the field. Almost like fireworks choreographed to music!

I have the problem as well.

Obviously 'Big Numbers' in Fantasy Football are a direct correlation to yards/catches/TD's on Offense and Sacks/Int/TD's and holding Opponents to a few points for the Defense. Since he stated something to the effect of 'whoever is picked as their starter' I would assume he meant the QB. I listen to his Fantasy Football show on Sirius/XM and MJD is pretty knowledgable while delivering an entertaining product. I'm glad someone with access to a podium thinks we may actually do something positive this year.

I noticed the Louisiana purchase is not reflected on this map! lol

This Sums it all up!

This Post is 'RATED ARE'

GEEEEEEEEEEEEZ! - I got sucked into reading ANOTHER 'MPL' post. I'm reading along, the posts seem intelligent, backed with facts and then this post.....BAMN! "D. Anderson had one very good year. Not a fan of his but he is more proven than TE" ----- Are you serious, More 'Proven?' What has he proved? --In 2009 he passed for 888 yrds had 3 TD - 10 Int. In 2008 he passed for 1600yrds had 9TD - 8Int. That Equates to 2500 yds 12TD/18Int in TWO years. Would you seriously consider this as "Proven" - He's proven he sucks!! -- That was in Cleveland, a Team which 'fundamentally' is simular to the situation in Buffalo. Perhaps he is 'serviceable' in Arizona, a team with tons of Offensiive talent only two years removed from the SuperBowl. Upgrade NOT! "Sanchez young and unproven. IMHO, most football people would take him over any of our QB's" ----- If we 'plopped' Sanchez down into the middle of the field on gameday in a Bills uniform, would he outperform Trent? I Think Not! - Put him on a team with the #1 Defense, the #1 Rushing attack and he still was mediocre at best. Granted, he played well only in the Playoffs. "Bradford. How many of us would want him on our team right now?" ----- Good point, I want him. But not on the field NOW. I'd rather have him on the sideline holding a clipboard and learning. Gailey made decisions about the roster considering winning RIGHT NOW! Trent would give us the best chance RIGHT NOW, Bradford would give us the chance in the Future. "Cassel looked great in NE. I would take him over TE just based on that performance" ----- I guess this is also how you came up with your Derek Anderson Comments. A player exceptionally well for one season, several seasons ago. Are you are considering this as his entire body of work? -- Cassel also had Randy Moss, Wes Welker, arguably the Best Coach in the NFL and a team that just came off of a 16-0 season the year before. Oh yeah, He'd be a real upgrade over Trent minus all those other aforementioned 'non-factors' that effected his play. MPL, A few sentences into your post I realized the words before me were negative and hold little/no truth, so I glanced at the poster and, sure enough, MPL strikes again! --You certainly have a certain 'feel' to your writing and in this 'gloryhole' of a board, you aren't fooling anyone.

Gee, After reading this I want to suck-start a revolver. Thanks for your very 'uplifting' opinion. How about we hold off to, say.....week 3 to grade the team, the coaches, and the new Off/Def philosophies.

Are you referring to the 'Ultimate' team mode? I got addicted to the Ultimate online mode last year. Once you start winning some games and getting coins, you can start adding players rated higher than '65' overall. After the additions of a few stud players (rated in the 90-95 range) your team really starts to improve. I got my team up to '99 overall' and spent about an extra $150 doing it. They really know how to 'lure ya in' I'm 38 and have a decent paying job, I can imagine how addicting and difficult this is for an 11 year old with only a paper route. No wonder kids sell drugs!

When I see teams like Carolina, Cleveland and Tampa ranked higher, I have a 'problem' with the so called experts. Granted, we're not a big city franchise, and we don't don't go after Haynesworth/J Peppers type players in the offseason, but we ARE NOT the 30, 31 or 32 ranked team. Even if we signed Bradford, Spiller, Suh, Dez Bryant and brought back Jason Peters we'd probably only jump up the rankings to #29 according to the experts.

Think of it this way. If we were 'ranked' #1 and we finished at 8-8 or 9-7 we would all be grossley disappointed. Ranked at #32 and finishing 8-8 or 9-7 and I'd be pretty satisfied. Just my thoughts. Let the season begin....Go Buffalo!

Good Post MPL --Way to stand your ground! I may have to change my 'signature' after all!

I cant believe I had to read this far before 'someone' said it.

This was mentioned on another post. I guess the pick six against Detroit solidified him as the #2. Correct. I agree.

I along with many on this board were impressed with Bell. Heck, I liked Bell's running style more than that of Lynch, even when he WAS healthy.

We can Put Naaman Roosevelt in or run the wildcat with Spiller.

If he said " thanks buffalo for all the support...but i think im a have to find a new home!!" He meant " thanks buffalo for all the support....I'm on the roster, I'll make millions and I'm moving to Amherst"