uncle flap

Gilmore wasn't hurt then, and at the time they were (and likely still are) confident enough with McKelvin and Brooks, and at least hopeful Rogers or someone would step up/ further develop. I get that it's important to have depth, but I don't think it's some crime against humanity to decide against throwing a ton of money at a CB2 at best. Plus, it's a two-way street. FAs have to agree to sign here. Without bashing Buffalo, there are dozens of reasons why a player might sign with another team. If your answer is "just pay the man," well, you just can't do that for every position. Out of that list, the only guys I would've looked at are Sean Smith and Greg Toler. It's not like all those CBs are dirt cheap Pro Bowlers just waiting by the phone for the Bills to call.

Spiller has some lofty goals. Dedicated kid who has overcome adversity. If you don't know his back story, this is a very interesting read: http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/nfl-preview/spiller-busts-out-cj-spiller-once-given-the-label-of-draft-disappointment-has-come-of-age-in-a-hurry-bringing-hope-to-the-bills-faithful-20130901

Agreed. Even if Jackson isn't, they can't count on re-signing Spiller either. Too much can happen down the road, and they need to groom Spiller's replacement if, god-forbid, they let him walk or he flames out.

Re: Byrd, you don't become one of the top players at your position in the league by being lazy. You must be trolling if you're insinuating that he just rolls out of bed and is a Pro Bowler by accident. NFL/NCAA rules prohibit players from joining teams while school is in session. I find it hard to believe you knew that he missed rookie minicamp, but didn't know about that rule. And again, to think that Kyle Williams didn't play because he's lazy is silly. Even if you're right that he embellished his injuries to get out of playing, didn't he have to work hard to get to the point that he would warrant an extension and play at a Pro Bowl level when he was on the field? PS I googled reactions to the speech you included and found that while there's nothing inherently political in the speech itself, some politicians and commentators took it upon themselves to laud the speech as it apparently endorses "conservative" values, as if a healthy "work ethic" is somehow not a universal virtue.

I'm kinda curious what the "political" slant to this would be. Also, I'm struggling to understand how anyone doesn't think 99.9999999999999999999% of NFL players busted their butts to get where they're at. Equally as absurd is the idea that "hard work" somehow prevents injury in a brutal contact sport. You mentioned Wood and Jackson as hard workers and they've suffered their fair share of injuries. Oh no, don't look now, EJ Manuel is the next lazy goldbrick out to make a fast NFL buck! I mean, come on, a "procedure" for an "injury" that didn't even knock him out of the game? What an indolent leech!

I'd suggest you find a replay of the game to watch. Heath was especially terrible, and to say Butler struggled is putting it mildly. Nothing you said is untrue, except perhaps that the expectation is that every DB should be perfect. I disagree, and I think many, if not most, here can tell the difference between giving up a completion and getting outright burned. The Lions receivers had a handful of drops and catches out of bounds. The stat line doesn't accurately reflect how poorly the secondary played IMO. Especially when there's no bonus for roasting the coverage. In defense of the Bills DBs, it was obvious that they were put on islands much of the time, so that they could be evaluated at a higher standard. Well, they didn't rise to the occasion. I agree with OC the OP re: drafting DBs high. And I think Brooks will turn out OK. Right now, it's kinda feast or famine with him, but he's still developing. I think we will all agree soon that he is at the very least capable - certainly not a "hole." If they can pick up an FA who is better than Butler, and/or Rogers can live up to the promise he showed his first year (last year was abysmal), I think they'll be OK. Looking ahead to next year, I don't think the situation is so dire that they need to draft a DB high, but I still think they should simply because of the numbers game that OC illustrated above.

Actually, he was down on Rogers since nearly the beginning of camp.

I was sooo confused about this too until I played around in the "Strategies" menu. If/When you change the scheme (which you can do for each position) it affects the player rating. The player still plays the same, but the rating is supposed to be a guide for you to see how players fit into certain schemes/philosophies. For example, BJ Raji's rating is a 63 if your positional scheme says pass rushing 4-3 end. I changed the scheme to 3-4 run stopper, but still lined him up as a 4-3 end and his rating was whatever it's supposed to be (high 80s/low 90s). Still used same playbook and the same overall scheme, I just had to change the position specific scheme. Incorrect. The D is 3-4 based, and the O is "balanced" in a pretty loose sense. Most plays are multiple receiver sets out of shotgun or singleback formations. There are also two pistol formations, one with CJ and Freddy.

Agreed that it may be the worst series in sports, but I'm actually intrigued by tonight's installment. I can't lie and say I'm not interested in watching the Bills handle their QB situation. If one or more of them carve it up, I'll be slightly relieved. On the flip side, if they don't, I won't be any more skeptical, as my expectations are already nil. Granted, I know that they'll be facing 3rd and 4th stringers for the most part. But those bubble guys will be playing their butts off, unlike starters who would simply be going through the motions. So while it might not mean much, and the game most likely will be a puddle of hot garbage water like the rest, I must admit this year's edition of the worst series in sports at least has the potential to be somewhat entertaining.

You're right- sorry for hijacking the thread.

My goodness. Pray tell, how did you find a link to the article you quoted? Bing? Yahoo? I guess since I found the precious article you cited listed in a simple Google search, it isn't useful or meaningful. Although, I can also find your meaningless, useless reply through a Google search as well, so maybe you're on to something. And which point did I miss? I answered all your questions, and your single "point" was that, "Words aren't bad, intentions are." Well, based on the Native American logo, I can only assume that the intention of the name "Redskin" is intended to represent Native Americans. Despite your denial, "redskin" is usually offensive in every other context. You're telling me that the "Washington Redskins" name is completely unrelated to the term "redskin," but you're arguing that the name shouldn't be changed because the word "redskin" originally had a neutral connotation, while ignoring the fact that if you were to call a Native American a "redskin," he would certainly take it as an insult. He wouldn't think that you were mistaking him for a football player, as you seem to be implying. So you're using an outdated definition of a term, that you then deem irrelevant anyway, to conclude that the name shouldn't be changed? You have a flawed premise and a flawed argument, so your conclusion is moot. For like the fifth time now in this thread, I ask, why do you and others feel obligated to argue about the definition and/or connotation of the word "redskin," when I assume your real beef with the scenario is something about "freedom" and "whiny PC liberals?" And again, for like the fifth time, I agree that they shouldn't be forced by Congress to change the name. Snyder has every right to call the team whatever they want. And if you don't find it offensive, more power to you. Why is it that you have so much trouble understanding why someone else might be offended, as if it's completely irrational? Do you really think these hollow arguments and analogies are convincing in the slightest? Is your baseless opinion somehow more valuable than anyone else's? I'd actually say that it's less valuable, since there was apparently no critical thought involved in concocting your "opinion." If this is really about freedom, what about the freedom to protest? The freedom to litigate? Isn't a Native American, or anyone else for that matter, "free" to be offended by the team name?

Check this site for some goodies: http://timminneci.co...falo-bills-fan/ You can download the mp3s by saving the links to your computer. There's also plenty of good stuff on YouTube, like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YITZV4Ud6pw You can download the audio from any YouTube by using this site: http://www.youtube-mp3.org/ Talkin' Proud and plenty of the stuff you're looking for can be found there. Don't worry it's legal, provided you don't use someone else's copyrighted material commercially. Same as using a VCR to tape your favorite show. Let me know if you need any help!

So... I have issues, I'm a racist, and I'm the one who missed the point? Nice strawman! Since you didn't do anything to refute what I said, I won't bother to repeat myself and give you another opportunity to embarrass yourself. But feel free to continue, you've done such a great job so far.

Me too! Go Bills!

No, the same logic does not apply to pot. Plenty of employers can fire you or discipline you if you test positive for pot. The bottom line is that any employer can create any set of requirements for employment, as long as they don't discriminate.

Oh, you are serious. Well, none of those examples disparage a group of people who were systematically marginalized and nearly exterminated by the ancestors of the current powers that be, nor do any of those examples refer to a word used in a derogatory sense describing the color of their skin. People are proud to be cowboys, proud to be patriots, and proud to be steel workers- none of those things have anything to do with race or skin color. Native Americans are certainly proud of their heritage, but would not be proud to reduced to a description of their skin color. Bill Cody was a celebrity and war hero with local ties. The football team's name doesn't glorify the killing of bison, it does just the opposite! The damn logo is a charging bison! Like I said I get the "slippery-slope" thing, but to make a comparison using those examples is ludicrous. Instead of using your brain to concoct asinine analogies, why don't you take a second to think about how someone besides yourself might feel?

They follow their own guidelines. Just like many PEDs and other drugs (like Adderall, for example) are completely legal, the NFL has decided that they are not to be used by its players. Think of it this way: You are legally allowed to be drunk*, but if you show up to work reeking of alcohol and slurring your words, do you think they would be ok with it because it's "legal?" Or as someone else put in another thread; You can walk around all day with a bathrobe on, but if you show up to a desk job like that, you can expect to be fired or disciplined. * Allowed to be drunk as long as you don't commit a related crime, such as driving while drunk or disturbing the peace.

Glad you were! I mean I get that he still might not be a Bill long term, but I think it's safe to assume he'll be here for at least this year and the next. I want to take Whaley at his word that the Bills are still committed to keeping him long term. I don't know the author's source(s) but I doubt he has any more insight than what we've heard from reputable NFL sources, which is essentially nothing. The Bills could be willing to offer a contract that is higher than Weedle's but not high as Byrd initially wanted. Too bad we have to wait til at least the end of the year to find out.

You can't be serious.

First of all, plenty of people still use the term disparagingly, although you are correct that the most prominent use today is in reference to the football team. But the football team's name is in reference to a disparaging term. So the connotation hasn't completely changed, just the context. It's not like "awful" which was once used to describe things in a positive way, or "nice" which at one time meant "foolish." http://web.archive.org/web/20071010125236/http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096411092 Furthermore, I still fail to understand why so many are so defensive of the name. Like I said upthread, I even agree with the anti-PC crowd in the sense that Snyder shouldn't be forced to change the name. I get the fear of the slippery-slope. But one can be anti-PC without being pro-racist nomenclature/imagery. It's a shame some can't or won't separate the two.

So? The origin of the term doesn't have anything to do with it, if that is even accurate. Besides referring to the football team, the term has been most widely used in a disparaging way, or at best insensitively. Social mores change. So do the meanings/connotations of words.

Understanding scheme and tendencies is all well and good, but at a certain point, what sets Byrd apart is his ability to make plays on the ball in instances when others wouldn’t. The above play is from Buffalo’s Week 11 game against Miami; it's Byrd's favorite of the season. From the time the ball leaves Ryan Tannehill’s hand, Byrd dashes from just outside the hash mark all the way to the sideline. It’s possible in part because of how Byrd reads Tannehill’s eyes, but also because of this: http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/72039/the-all-22-all-stars-jairus-byrd-an-unsigned-star?ex_cid=grantland33

Well they didn't even practice that day as it was after the game Friday night. Even NFL players get a day off.

Right, and we've seen what Hughes has done thus far in preseason as well. You may be right that Allen wasn't going all out, but I think that's a great way to get injured, and I doubt he was just going through the motions. And I'm not sure what your point is about Mario. In his (albeit limited) time in preseason games, he was playing his tail off. Vanilla or not, the goal of an end is to get past the tackle.