transient

I doubt very much that NE* is at all thrilled with giving up 30 today, or that they game planned that way. If Fitz doesn't throw the pick in the endzone, this could have very easily been a different outcome, as that was a 14 point swing. Saying they didn't care is ridiculous, especially after their D gave the game away last week to the Jets.

Until today, the front 3 at least made it difficult to run. It's no secret that we were gonna go through some growing pains with the OLBs, or the 4-3 DEs playing out of place, more like. I think both the lack of a pass rush, and the inability to cover TEs falls at their feet, and both killed us today. Unfortunately, I don't think the answers to this problem will be found this season. BTW, love the username. "Eat it, man! Not a lot, just a little piece. I'm sayin', Easy Wind is a lyin' moon cricket. But maybe on this one, he wasn't really lyin', 'cause I did it. For a small nickel. See, see, he leaves that part out. Five yards man. And it was only a little bitty piece of ****. I mean, it didn't really have no taste, either. Spongy."

+1 +100 Typical Pats* home cookin'!! I was more annoyed by his stupid haircut than the penalty.

If this game shows anything, it's that the OL is getting better, and that the offense isn't as far off as it looked with TE at the helm (though the caliber of defense we played today is not on a par with the last 2 weeks). I've been an advocate of letting this front office and coaching staff evaluate players and make their own minds up, not basing player evaluations on last year's disaster. Going in to the season, offense in general was a big ?, as were OLBs and defensive line. I wanted the coaching staff to see if TE could be salvaged. As of three games in, offense is starting to look like a matter of execution and getting serviceable play from RT and QB AND they've already turned the page on TE. Defensively it's still on the OLBs (pass rush AND figuring out how the &^%* to cover a tight end). Unfortunately the d-line gave up almost 200 yards rushing, which is a big step back. From a coaching standpoint, the gameday management is WORLDS ahead of last season... it almost looks like Gailey's coached a football team before. I expect over the next few weeks as they figure out who fits into their long-term plans, you'll see some of the dead weight jettisoned. I wonder if Scott's role today is an indication that Gailey/Edwards have seen enough of Whitner, already. We knew this would be a work in progress, but there is progress being made. I'd say three games in, and things are starting to come in to focus (and I'm still in the dinner's on me smartass competition ). If nothing else, at least this game was watchable.

Ultimately, I think they will, but it will still take a few games to get to that point. My point before was that right now everything is new to everyone, and in the next few seasons there is going to be a ton of turnover in personnel. Taking the time to evaluate who's here now lets them do it right. I couldn't agree more about Kelsay's play, but this is only the second game he's been asked to assume that role. If they're going to turn the page on him NOW, then they need to be sure they're done with him, because there are other positions that need to be overhauled, too. I'm just saying they need to determine the priority, and to do that they need to see everyone play. They're more likely to give the young guys longer to develop (even beyond this season), so they need to be sure the vets no longer fit into their plans (beyond this season) first, IMO.

Love the Fitz avatar!! Is that a bucket of pig's blood I see?! This place is gonna burn!!

Damn... I was hoping for a picture of boobs when I opened this thread.

I'm glad to hear you've turned the corner on your obsessive compulsive disorder. Now, if you can escape the delusion of granduer that your actions actually have some cause and effect relationship with the universe you'll be all set!!

I think evaluating veteran players in a new system, especially if they're playing a new position, takes some time too. If they're REALLY bad and not getting better, replacing them becomes a priority not only now but in the draft, however if they're serviceable now and showing improvement, they can be less of a priority to replace. Hopefully this staff can turn the page on bad players, which first means they've identified them and second means they've given up on them. This organization takes TOO long to do that, historically, because they're always back and forth on players and always failing at some sort of reclamation project. If two games was all it took to decide they're done with TE, great, check a box off on the list of things to do this season and don't look back. So what if it takes a few more games for some other players, and therefore it takes longer for some of the rookies to see the field, as long as it's done with an eye toward the (near, hopefully) future instead of the now, which will be painful regardless.

Nix best move as GM is not giving in to the wailing and gnashing of teeth that would have him trade every one and no one, bring in every free agent that becomes available just because, and run the organization like a fan. I love that it appears he can hear the message but ignore the personal slights that are thrown in with it, and I love that he appears to understand that this fan-base is thread bare on patience, and yet despite that is refusing to take short cuts in trying to build a winning organization. And it would appear that his coach has the same philosophy. IMO, the difference right now compared to the last 10 years is that we have a strong-minded personnel guy in charge (similar to the late 80s - early 90s!) with a vision for the team (which was thought to be the case with Donahoe, as well, but ultimately was NOT as evidenced by his constant defensive posturing and paranoid anti-fan persona). Unfortunately his team vision, while likely more suited to the climate and the division, is VERY different from what was here, and therefore there are A LOT of needs. Evaluating who is here RIGHT NOW that is serviceable in the role they're in will allow him to determine who needs to be replaced RIGHT NOW, and what he sees and what Chan sees is not likely the same as what the fans see. Some people will get on board with it, and realize it will take time, and some people will scream and shout and bang on the table because they're out of patience because of his predecessors' mistakes. Regardless, IMO the angry mob at the gate will not change the way he's going to do things, and it shouldn't. He seems like the guy who will tell you publicly that he's not the smartest guy in the room with a smirk because the dirty little secret that he'll never admit to is that deep down he KNOWS from a football standpoint he is the smartest guy in the room and he KNOWS he's the right guy for the job, and the ONLY thing that will convince people of that is the result, and ultimately he KNOWS he'll prove it. He answers the questions and plays the media game because it's part of the job (and he actually appears to enjoy it to a point), but he won't tell you what you want to hear because he doesn't care what you WANT to hear, but he will tell you the truth as he sees it and let you deal with it as you will. I also don't get the impression he's big on excuses, and would not be surprised to hear him admit it publicly when he's made a mistake. There is none of the defensiveness of Donahoe or the cluelessness of Levy (the GM) in what he exudes right now, IMO. Only TIME will tell if he's going to be successful, but expecting success RIGHT NOW AFTER 2 GAMES with the mess he inherited is unrealistic, and the only one's who don't seem to realize that are the mob at the gate.

I agree in principle, but I think there has to be a preparation process involved. Throwing them to the wolves when you know they're not ready does nothing but destroy their confidence. Hopefully the coaches are grooming the young to get them into the game in the next couple of weeks as they evaluate the other players at those positions. When they are on par, or appear to be a better option, then they should be put into the starting/active lineup. There are 14 more games left to do it, and just because we suck doesn't mean our rookies will develop quicker. Personally, I'm hoping this staff is better at getting players to their potential than previous staffs, and part of that is not crushing them early on IMO. So many people are livid about Modrak's job of talent evaluation without considering that truly talented players can be really ineffective with poor coaching and no development, thereby making his "choices" look worse when the coaching (or lack of) destroys these players.

Screw Flutie. He was a blip in this frachise's history and if it wasn't for his shameless self promotion and his schmarmy underdog story his mediocre play wouldn't have been talked about beyond his tenure here. In fact, I think the curse started when he hung Thurman out to dry with that terrible pass that resulted in a rib injury further deteriorating TT's skills, ultimately resulting in him finishing his career with the 'phins, thereby solidifying the curse. I say we sacrifice Flutie!!

You probably could have edited that a little better instead of leaving it that way for people to laugh at the wording and then feel bad about themselves afterward. As for the situation, it's rather Shakespearean... his grandparents must have had a truly astonishing bond.

I told you so mentality aside, it does add credibility to the FO's decision to (possibly) pursue McNabb, who would have been a clear upgrade despite Buddy's recent gamesmanship, and eschew players who were essentially exactly what they already had to work with, only with a different nameplate on the back of their jersey.

Unfortunately, sometimes you gotta put it under the microscope to prove it's cubic zirconia, though.

If he was on the Steelers, he could pass for Dark Helmet It's so big, it's preventing him from getting more than 2 inches of height in his celebratory jump in this picture.

I could actually see it being Fitz. He lacks athletic ability, but I think he has a pretty good head for the game, and it would be a natural progression to put a young guy in once he had surpassed Fitz's potential.

+1

Stanford may have a good academic reputation, but the Ivy League is made up of Yale, Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, Dartmouth, Princeton, University of Pennsylvania, and Brown. Stanford is not an Ivy League school.

Given the replay, I don't know that Parrish actually caught the ball... it looked like it bobbled between him and the DB, with it not hitting the ground and the DB coming up with it. It doesn't make your point any less valid, though, since he should have caught it.

Only by first overcoming his fear of the football through aversion therapy can Trent Edwards move forward and address his more glaring issue, his overwhelming fear of Lee Evans, in similar fashion.

Your QB, regardless of who it is, is not hindering the development of this team at this point. WRs can learn to run routes, OL can learn to block, LBs can learn to cover in the 3-4, and they can still figure out how to get a pass rush even without a QB in the game. This is an evaluation process this season, and this is not unexpected at this point. It's ugly and painful as a fan, but it is not unexpected. It's two games, and Green Bay is expected to challenge for the SB this year... did you really expect the Bills to look good yesterday? No one was going to come in here and turn this around overnight. 10 years of futility cannot be put at Nix and Gailey's doorstep with the expectation that they would sweep it up in two games. Putting bandaids on it will only slow the whole process down. In the words of Tyler Durden, "Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken." The Bills are going to have to hit bottom before they can start to climb back up, and that means deciding once and for all who to move on from and who has a future on this team.

Jason Peter's game left town with his humility, his work ethic, his diet, and Jim McNally.

IIRC, the first team didn't score a TD last season in preseason, so hardly great.

Nowhere in my post did I allude to Locker doing this to get his degree. My point was that he took his father's advice to heart and thought about whether or not he would regret not playing college ball for one more year, which is a sign of maturity. The article suggests that his decision was in part based on his relationship with his teammates and coaches. Beyond that, he says very little definitive about why he made this decision, and instead talks about his hometown and his view of football as a sport. The point I was making was that you said you were put off by what he didn't say despite the fact that the article uses very little in the way of direct quotes about this decision. I am basing this opinion on the fact that I am currently an English speaking individual who realizes that explaining your reasoning for a decision such as this probably takes more than 3-4 sentences, and that when the 3-4 sentences that are included aren't even left to the discretion of the person whom the article is being written about, then the likelihood that they are representative of what HE wanted to say is diminished. For all we know they conveniently left out the part about having something to prove, or wanting to go out on a winning season, or wanting to get the most out of this coaching staff. My point is judging people based on what they didn't say when you weren't directly a part of the conversation is an exercise in futility that will leave you making judgements on incomplete information.