maddenboy

Wack video. With wack music. No highlights showing Rogers' speed. (no offense to the poster, only to whoever made the video). And who would think to put that weak music to a football highlight video. C'mon. Happy to have him on the team, but this video doesnt add anything to it. Sorry.

is this Peter King signing an autograph? http://s159.photobucket.com/user/Mikey82_photos/media/Buffalo%20Bills%20Training%20Camp%202013/07-30-13%20Tuesday%20Morning/Photo053_zps853d94b3.jpg.html?sort=9&o=53

Just listened. about 7 mins or so. Yawn. Nothing new, or insightful. 75% of it was excitement about a new quarterback. Without analysis. The only players mentioned by name were EJ and Kolb.

"fixing" As in FYP. Not changing. "Changing" is so 80s.

Belichick was happy for the rain at his camp. Chance to practice in crappy conditions. Lets get at it (although it slightly increases the risk of injury). Think Luke Kuechly. Sideline to sideline. But with a badder attitude. I think it was Vince Lombardi who told his defenders to play under control, but "arrive at the ball in an angry mood."

Depends. If I started a post (which i've done maybe 25 times) or replied to a post with something possibly controversial, I check maybe 15-20. In the offseason I get used to having not much new here, so maybe 3 ish. During the season maybe 3, and on gameday, prolly 10.

Nice. Somebody is raising them right. Carry on, sir.

a few takeaways: - Remember what it was like to have a real NFL offense? - Bill Polian belongs in the HOF right NOW. Look at those teams he put together. wow. - Jim Kelly is the greatest Bill ever. He meant the most to this team, to the region, and to the lore of what it is to be a Bills fan. OJ is second. A very very very close second. - I think EJ Manuel needs to see this video, to have a sense of what it is to be a Buffalo Bill

I'm in. Anybody have Aaron Hernandez's cell phone number handy? I think he just wants to "kick it" with Billy.

Uh, I believe its "srkip crubs"

Wow. MUST see TV. I'm ready to run through a brick wall. OMG I cant wait.

yawn. The payoff is not worth the time here. Nothing about football. Spoiler alert: "jadeveon clowney could beat the Bills all by himself." Yes, that's the entire connection to the Bills. that single isolated sentence. Carry on, sirs.

Gotta sign him first, right? And next to RB, Safety is one of the least valued positions in the draft, making it less likely a team would give up a first rounder. Not saying they wouldnt for an up-and-coming young All-Pro safety. Just that if he were a WR or LT or OLB it would be much easier.

I dont think he's past his prime. He is in his prime, near the end of it. "on a plateau" is what I said. I didnt ask how many pro bowls. I suggested that he hasnt been an all-pro for a while, so when the Poster said "all pro DE >>>>> all pro Safety," my point was that Mario isnt an all pro DE, while Byrd IS an all pro Safety, so its apples to oranges. And my stated rationale for still picking Mario is that we dont have as much behind him as we do behind Byrd, so the loss of Mario would affect us more. I'll concede that sometimes my thoughts appear (and maybe are) a bit scattered, but I do try to be clear and succinct. I chose Mario over Byrd, if I have to choose.

Sir, I chose Mario. I was simply responding to a poster who said he preferred Mario, on the rationale that an ALL-PRO DE was >>>>> an ALL PRO safety. While I still chose mario, I was pointing out that his argument was inapt, since Mario hasnt been an ALL PRO for quite some time, while BYRD was an ALL PRO last year. He is comparing apples to oranges. Carry on, sir. Respectfully, I wasnt replying to the OP. In response to the OP, I chose Mario. I think the terms "all pro" and "pro bowl" are too often used interchangeably. They are not. All-pro >>> pro bowl. Because pro bowlers often decline, and the 4th alternate becomes a pro bowler. And yes, I think Mario is past his prime. He is on a plateau. We need to watch for when the decline starts. Byrd is on the rise. And yet, for reasons stated, I still choose Mario.

No. In my first post i reluctantly chose Mario, because of the lack of depth behind him, compared to our young(ry) talent at safety. But I was responding to a post about how a Probowl DE is >>>>> a Probowl safety. Point is, since when was Mario a probowl DE?

You sure about that? Are you sure an all-pro DE 3-4 years ago is >>> an all-pro safety today? Is Dwight Freeney >>> Jairus Byrd? Is Richard Seymour >>> Dashon Golston (49ers) or Earl Thomas (seattle)? Which would you rather have, RIGHT NOW?

Reluctantly, I choose MARIO. 6 words. Da'Norris Searcy, Duke Williams, Aaron Williams. (and if you think i'm puffing, go and Youtube Duke Williams, Safety, Nevada) If we lose Mario, the names behind him dont impress me much. Especially at a position (DL) that benefits from a little depth/rotation. You caint never have enuf pass rush (see: Giants, New York).

I'd say LB. Somewhere around pick 18-22. I think we barely make the playoffs this year, then one-and-done because the team lacks veteran leadership/experience. I think Whaley will start to impose the Steeler Way on this roster. If there's one thing Pittsburgh can never ever have enough of, its thick, mean, hungry, angry linebackers. True, they dont have to be first round linebackers, but other than TE, it will still be our biggest need and, even if not, "blah blah competition blah blah cant have enough playmakers blah blah" will spew forth from OBD.

It seems that the consensus here is to LIFT the blackouts. But, if that happens, probably stadium attendance will slowly but surely drop. (If you disagree, please tell us why, and remember we live in a colder market). If attendance drops, and with a very small, economically depressed market, we would lose yet another reason for the future owner to keep the team in Buffalo. So taken to the extreme, would you rather, in 5 years, have a team here that you cant watch unless it "sells out" (however they end up defining "sell out") or watch the Los Angeles Bills or the London Bills anytime they're on TV?

You had me somewhat persuaded, until this last sentence. We can choose to pay, or not pay. No one said we owe them anything. And they dont owe us anything either. (I majored in Econ too, many years ago). Natural monopolies do occur. The problem is not that they charge higher, or obtain Economic Rent. Rather, w/r/t government involvement, the problem is when they abuse that market power. Whether the NFL is or isnt abusing its monopoly, to the detriment of the public, is open to debate. But to me, the NFL is a luxury item, not a necessity like electricity, clean water, etc. So the less necessary is the product, the less the govt. should throw its weight into the situation.

I dunno. At some point, the logical extension of this is "I want the government to gimme free stuff." I understand the arguments about taxpayers funding stadia and the govt. monopoly. But they have a product that we love and we are willing to pay for. Why should the government be involved? Isnt the govt. supposed to protect free enterprise, and not guide the market? If consumers stop buying the product, the NFL will adjust itself to keep making money. But, if consumers keep buying, that means we like it (or dont hate it) so THAT is the free market doing its work. Sure, i'd like to watch free games too. But not at the expense of having the government FORCE the NFL to give me free stuff.

It actually HELPS a team like buffalo, with a bigger stadium. A team with a bigger stadium capacity can make lots more money with a sellout. I dont think Mr. Ralph would be happy if selling 75% of his seats were considered a "sellout." He wants to get paid. It actually hurts the citizens of the local market if the team has a bigger stadium. But not the team itself. Mr. Ralph couldnt care less if the game is blacked out. He wants your asses in the seats, and he wants you to pay for it. i would love to know Mr. Ralph's position on this. It would be very telling.

I'd say Jamie Foxx. He can look young and also old.

As to whether Freddie and CJ should be on the field at the same time, doesnt it depend on: (1) the Offensive Line. Are they better at blocking a one-back set? If so, go one back and put another receiver out there. And CJ would be the one-back for the majority of snaps. I think that having O-linemen who can get to the second level quickly (and take out linebackers) is what the one-back needs. Otherwise, you need that 2nd rb/fb as a lead blocker to take out the linebackers. If one-back, maybe 80/20 split CJ/FJ. (2) whether CJ would be lined up in the slot, while Freddie is in the backfield. If so, go for it. (3) whether they intend to employ a fullback, which i'm guessing they dont. Fullbacks dont work well with a "fast-paced" offense. I say, go one-back for the majority of plays, and if that one-back is Freddie, then either give CJ a rest, or put him in the slot. +1. When I was young I needed MUCH more rest than I do now, mr. Gailey.