uncle flap

Really? Since we're taking things literally, I didn't write, "I would bet." I wrote, "I bet," meaning I already bet someone $50 and won. We emailed a professor at Troy and read McKelvin's Negrophilia: avant-garde Paris and black culture in the 1920s. It was brilliant. I'd send you a copy, but it'd probably be over your head, like the subtleties of figurative language. Then again, maybe not... Is the "smart" in "smart aleck" supposed to be taken literally too?

"What the lick read?" is just another way of saying "What's up?" I'm not sure how it's derived. I've heard two explanations that make sense: The first is it's short for "What does the lottery ticket read?" Lottery tickets are called licks (L[ottery T]icks). By association, a "lick" is also any money or wealth acquired in a rapid fashion, often as a result of some criminal activity. So it would be like substituting "Did you win the lottery?" for "How are you doing?" The second explanation I've heard is that it's a corruption of "What's the liquid weight?" said in a foreign accent. This would be a question posed in a large scale cocaine transaction to determine the potency, or simply the amount being purchased. Or it could be some combo of the two, but in any case, kids I teach use it to greet each other all the time, and many popular rappers also use the phrase. Which brings me to my second point. Justnzane is right that there is a cultural phenomenon regarding using proper English. What also plays a part is that while many students are able to use generally accepted standard grammar and spelling, they choose to misspell words, etc., to be cool. It is also certainly true that many kids are simply unable to do so to varying degrees. I bet that Leodis is capable of reading and writing much better than he displays on Twitter. Granted, he likely wouldn't be confused for a Rhodes Scholar, but it'd be much more interesting (not to mention relevant) to read something he wrote for a college class if you really wanted to judge his literacy, and investigate privileges allowed for athletes. (Steve- I assume you were kidding, I'm pointing that out.)

I'm not sure what was in that article that makes you think it's any less likely. Granted, a new stadium project isn't very likely to get moving right now, but a whole lot can change quickly if Ralph were to pass and/or the Bills are sold before the current lease expires.

WHAT A JOKE! I, like ALL of us, was on board with the signing. Now, I already wish they hadn't. Even if he gets back to his elite form, I won't like the guy. Sure, I'll be happy for this hypothetical production, but he's made it clear who is #1 in his book. I understand the sentiment of not placing a value on strangers' and armchair critics' opinions, but in this case we are talking about a proud city that this guy is supposed to represent. It's fine to think, "I don't care if what you say about me," but it's another thing to SAY IT. Especially when you've been underperforming and seemingly taking plays off. Only Mario knows if he has been truly giving 100%. And if he has been, fine. But considering what some outspoken players have said publicly, I have my doubts. I just think it would've been a lot better to simply make the cliched statement he qualified it with: But no, he had to antagonize a reeling fan base. Thanks, dude.

Well put. This is exactly how I feel.

http://blogs.buffalonews.com/press-coverage/2012/10/talent-what-talent-kyle-williams-blasts-bills-defensive-play.html http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/10/22/kyle-williams-lays-into-bills-defense/ WIlliams basically went on to say it's a matter of execution, not game planning and scheming. IMO, there's something to say about the talent AND the coaching. Coming into the season, I definitely expected a lot more out of the D. Now it seems the players might have been overrated, but I still can't concede that there is a fundamental lack of talent. What I mean is that perhaps some of the players aren't as good as we thought they'd be, but I don't think the talent level matches up with their ranking as the worst D in the league. Sure, they don't have 11 Pro Bowlers out there, but they certainly don't have the worst 11 starters in the league top to bottom either. So, what gives? Obviously the players aren't making plays, but over rated or not, the D is not completely devoid of talent. To me, the results are indicative of poor coaching. Motivation is just as important as scheming. Wanny and Co. need to 1. put the players in a position to succeed, and 2. instill the confidence that what they're doing will work. Right now, what they're doing isn't working, and it couldn't possibly be worse. I think the players can certainly play much better individually, but I think it's up to the coaching staff to get them to do so. What do you guys think? Is Kyle Williams right? Or is he just toeing the company line?

HA! beat me to it. More info and the NFL's statement: http://blogs.buffalonews.com/press-coverage/2012/10/nfl-fines-bills-20000-for-not-reporting-mario-williams-injury.html

Brad Smith Explains Failed Wildcat Throw Against Arizona More: http://blogs.buffalonews.com/press-coverage/2012/10/brad-smith-explains-failed-wildcat-throw.html

It's a $20,000 fine to the team

There are different rules on kicks to protect the long snapper because it is so different than snapping to a qb, even in shotgun. You have to be more bent over and looking backwards between your legs to have any chance at an accurate snap with enough zip on it. Therefore the long snapper is vulnerable and doesn't really block. Not all teams have a roster spot dedicated to a long snapper. Some centers and back up linemen do it. However, even though there's rules protecting the long snapper, it's still easy for them to be injured because of the vulnerable position they're put in: head down (blind to the clusterfunk of guys trying to block and block the kick) and with no leverage. So plenty of teams don't risk injuring a starting o lineman in that situation. Injury plays a role in keeping a kicker and punter too. If one goes down and you've only got one, there goes your entire special teams impact. Plus, being specialized means you're that much better at one. Coaches think it's important enough to have a dedicated guy at each position, so there you go. Think of it this way, even though it's a stretch: Any guy playing WR could probably make a decent CB, and vice versa. But if one guy playing two positions goes down, you're doubly screwed. Same with Oline and Dline. Most of those guys could probably be decent on the other side of the ball.

I've always liked McKelvin. I think he's super talented, despite his troubles in tracking down the ball. I basically stopped defending him and giving him props because it seemed to fall on deaf ears. Glad to see there are some others here that recognize the bright side. I also always thought he got a bum rap. I don't think it's that he has made so many more bad plays than any other corner, it's that they've been big gains and have come at inopportune times. So his mistakes are magnified, as everyone remembers the big plays. I don't know how he could ever redeem himself after the fumble gaffe in the Pats* game. He has of course returned 4 kicks/punts for TDs not to mention the countless big returns that have set up the offense with great field position. Every corner gives up completions all the time. Even the best CBs in the league allow a catch a little less than half the time the are targeted. The WRs have such an advantage I'm surprised it's not higher. That said, this helps explain some of the disdain for McKelvin: http://www.footballo...ting-stats-2011

Thanks mrags- I still kind of got carried away there. I wasn't trying to pick on you in particular, just the fact that I keep seeing people say Brad Smith sucks when what they probably mean is what you just wrote here. I don't think Brad Smith or the wildcat sucks (in fact, I think BS is pretty damn good), but I can certainly respect the opinion that the Bills should stick to running their base offensive packages for the reasons you clearly stated. I also think that many are getting hung up on the wildcat when there are much more serious problems/shortcomings. Especially Fitz's arm, the Defense as a whole, and not giving Spiller the carries he deserves. Chan was god awful on Sunday, but after having a day to let it digest, I don't think he should be fired immediately. Let's see how this season unfolds and then re-evaluate.

I respect your opinion, and can understand where you are coming from. Many of the things discussed in this and the other thread I linked are related, but separate issues. The three main points boil down to three things: 1. The opinion on signing/paying Brad Smith and his use of a roster spot. 2. The use of the Wildcat- whether it is effective at all, or effective enough to be worth using, or if it just plain shouldn't be used because of some other reason 3. The call for BS to throw against all conventional wisdom. However, I think yours (and many others') arguments become muddled when you combine all three points into some kind of misguided rant. I don't mean to offend you or anyone else, but it often isn't clear on here if we are arguing, discussing, or simply venting. All of which are cool, but let's try to be sure which we are doing when we're addressing each other if indeed we want to have a discussion. In regard to the 3 points I listed above: 1. I don't know that if I was GM, I would make BS a priority signing. Obviously the FO felt they needed an extra wrinkle, and BS is a good fit for a wildcat QB. It's hard to quantify $ vs return except in the most extreme cases, so I'd say $4 million or whatever he's making isn't really making a big difference, so it's not really important what kind of difference BS makes with respect to his earnings. The roster spot he uses would likely otherwise be occupied by a player that would be inactive on game days, and because BS can fill a number of roles, that saves additional spots. The question I pose for those who disagree on the signing- who would you rather have in that roster spot? I bet I can convince you that BS is a better option. Or maybe not, idk, try me lol. 2. If someone doesn't like the wildcat because he considers it a gimmick and/or would rather see the base packages, that's his opinion, and I probably can't convince him otherwise. To say it's ineffective is misleading. Yes, there have been miscues, but the results are generally positive. This point gets muddled again because some don't like the idea of Brad Smith running the ball or don't get why he should bother taking the snap if he's just going to hand off to Spiller. Well, now that's an Xs and Os discussion. It seems like the dislike of Brad Smith and the wildcat are linked, but not for a legitimate reason. It's like saying, "I don't like Brad Smith because of the wildcat, and I don't like the wildcat because of Brad Smith." That statement can be true, but the argument is circular. I just don't see the wildcat as ineffective, and I don't often hear or read good arguments to scrap the package. I like creativity and I think it puts the defense in a tougher spot than it would appear. I will gladly call for the package to be scrapped once I don't see any potential AND/OR the base offense (read: Fitz) proves to have enough consistency that I'd rather see that every play. 3. I would've never called that play in a million years in that situation. But because it happened to be an interception doesn't make me want them to eliminate that play, much less the wildcat. If you watch again, a better read would be Spiller coming out of the backfield. He almost certainly would've picked up the first down. If Jones ran the correct route as Chan alluded it probably would've been a TD, or a huge gain in some other situation. I'd love to see that play run a few more times this season, but that was absolutely a bonehead call in that situation. I think I and most if not all wildcat proponents disagreed with the call, but that doesn't have anything to do with incorporating the wildcat package in other scenarios. Niether does the fact that both time BS has thrown he's been picked off. As I and many others have discussed, the pick in the KC game was a glorified punt in garbage time for the benefit of opposing teams' game tape. This pick was a mistake by Jones (maybe BS too) but even more so an incredible play by Peterson. The Bills might've lost as a result of that play, but certainly not that play alone. Fred spotted the Cards 3 points to start in what wound up being a 3 point game. Refs jobbed the BIlls on a bad spot/measurement. Defensive miscues allowed huge scrambles from Kolb. More than once motion was used to get Fitzgerald into single coverage, sometimes even by LBs and Safeties. Again, definitely a terrible call given the circumstances but the game shouldn't even have been close. Eliminate a few of these problems, maybe have Fitz connect a couple more times, and the Bills would've trounced them. Anyway, it's a fun discussion to have, and I enjoy being on the unpopular side for once. I can just as easily debate why they shouldn't use the wildcat, but since I like the wildcat, I'll do the opposite. Hope that doesn't make me a troll.

Good. Fitz needs a slap.

Nah, I just got to it this morning in the wildcat thread that was started yesterday. http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/151409-wildcat/page__st__20#entry2599917 Besides, I already gave my thoughts in this very thread (post #112) and no one bothered to reply. http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/150225-have-we-had-enough-brad-smith-yet/page__st__100#entry2570909 I'll sum up the main points if anyone's too lazy to click: 1. The Wildcat is productive. 2. Do people believe that the time spent on installing the Wildcat package is hurting the team somehow? Like Fitz will learn to throw if they just stopped practicing the damn wildcat so much? 3. Do people expect every wildcat snap to be a 40 yard run and/or a TD? The detractors sure act like it.

Me too! I don't know how successful running would've been, but at the very least you're burning clock. Run it on 2nd down, eat clock, and see what you got on 3rd. I bet a draw would've worked on a third and medium, if the scenario presented itself. I would agree except you're forgetting the Bills aren't a very good team. I'm sure the few wildcat reps in practice don't significantly detract from the base offense. It's not like the wildcat is holding the Bills back from being an otherwise good team. So if a gimmick is what they need to compensate, I'm all for it. It's really just a wrinkle that happens to have a name, so it's easier to criticize. There was the same pre-snap motion on that play as every other wildcat play they ran all day. Not sure what you mean. Smith faked a handoff to Spiller, same as he did on his 16 yard keeper. I wouldn't call it a "big" INT. It was essentially a punt in garbage time of the first game of the season when the Bills had a commanding 35 point lead. I'm sure Chan just said, "No matter what- throw it downfield so there's tape of us throwing out of the wildcat." Good DCs then knew that they had to cover wideouts and keep at least one safety back so someone like Roscoe doesn't get behind the coverage. That probably helped the running aspect of the wildcat last year until they scrapped it when BS had to play WR fulltime.

But since Ralph is cheap, he'll overrule Nix, since he won't have to spring for a new uniform. Seriously though, he sounds like he's having a good year and will probably be on a few teams' radar.

Well, Fitz will probably light it up since it's a homecoming game for him. Plus, I assume the roof (it's gonna be 90º) will be closed so no wind to help further flutter those wounded ducks. I agree with the premise that Fitz is limited and he's not the answer, but you can't seriously think Thigpen would do any better. There is some merit to the idea that when a backup steps in due to injury or whatever that the other players will step their game up to compensate, but I think in this case with the seemingly fragile collective psyche of the team, as soon as Thigpen reminds everyone why he's even more of a backup third-string journeyman than Fitz, the team will really collapse.

FWIW, in the latest SI NFL player's poll, Fred was tied for the 2nd most underrated player in the league. http://larrybrownsports.com/football/justin-smith-most-underrated-player-nfl/157917 Now, I wouldn't trade Fred, but it's obvious he's not recovered from his injury. Spiller needs to get the majority of the snaps at RB early in the game. Fred- when he's healthy- would best serve as the "closer" on this team. Like Dorkington said, CJ needs to get about 75% of the snaps. Basically, I'd like to see the ratio/model displayed in the Chiefs and Browns games: Give CJ plenty of opportunities and use Fred how Choice was used while Fred was out. No disrespect to Fred, but CJ is too good and the Bills need to feed him. Limit Fred's carries and keep him fresh for when the Bills really need to grind it out late in games, and when Spiller needs a breather. Of course, this idea only works when the Bills aren't playing catchup, so let's hope the new game plan the D is so excited about is successful this week.

FREE Safety. Not Strong. And "No," anyway. Searcy can take over SS as long as we're benching people. Byrd has had some bad plays this year, but there's no way I'm benching him for Aaron Williams.

This is a good basic plan. The onus is on the Bills D line. Sure, the run support will be better with the base D, but the D line has to do a better job and not run out of gas like they did last week. If SF isn't running no-huddle like the Pats*, the Bills will be able to spell the D linemen more and keep the studs fresh. I'd like the to think the Bills (the D especially) felt embarrassed and will be playing with a chip on their collective shoulder, and therefore perform with a little extra passion which could turn the tables in their favor. As good as the Niners D is, I think the Bills O matches up well enough to keep the score close. You're right about keeping the ball on the ground and burning clock. I'd much rather see punts and sacks than Fitz throwing picks. The Bills have a lot more to prove in this game than SF. I'm sure Harbaugh is wary of the trap game mentality, but I wonder if the Niners are truly ready for a Bills team that should be very motivated to prove this isn't the same ol' Bills.

I don't know if I should be surprised or not, since there hasn't been much local fanfare, but I thought maybe someone here would've picked up on this. Last night was the kick-off event for the Buffalo Fan Alliance. Along with some politicians and local hot shots, Matt Sabuda and Brian Cinelli unveiled the basis for their plans on helping increase the profitability of the Bills and also reducing the amount amount of potential debt incurred by a subsequent owner that would keep the Bills in Buffalo. The main tenet is a bond program which would work as a low (or actually zero, IIRC) interest loan to potential buyers of the Bills to reduce the overall cost/debt load. As Cinelli pointed out, even the richest of the rich use various types of financing to purchase teams, despite whatever wealth they have on hand. For example, Daniel Snyder financed $500M of the $800M it cost to buy the Redskins. The BFA believes they can raise $100M in bonds to substantially defray that type of debt in the sale of the Bills which would obviously make the team more attractive and affordable to an owner or ownership group aiming to keep the Bills in Buffalo. Basically, it would be like a $100M loan over say 30 years that would be far more attractive than other types of financing currently available. I know there have talks about a Bills Bonds program in the past, but these guys have actually done the leg work and have the backing of prominent people and organizations to create a viable plan that really gives fans an opportunity to make a difference. Not only are local Bills fans one of the most willing markets to spend money on the team, this plan allows ex-pats to invest in the team's future as well. Unlike the Green Bay shareholder program, the bonds would not be a direct investment to the team and are well within the NFL by-laws. As last night was simply a preview, there is not much on this in print or on the web yet, but expect to hear much more about this soon. Channel 2 was there filming, although I don't see any video online now. Here's their blurb on it: http://www.wgrz.com/news/article/183749/37/Bills-Fans-Local-Leaders-Meet-To-Discuss-Teams-Future-in-WNY Here's the Buffalo Fan Alliance website, although there's not much there yet either: http://www.buffalofanalliance.org/ What do you guys say? Wishful thinking? I was skeptical at first, but after hearing the details I think this can and will take off, and even become a model for other franchises- not just the bond aspect, but also a variety of naming rights and having taxes generated by teams and players go toward stadium and other franchise related maintenance. My apologies for not having further details, but I'm happy to try to answer any ?s about it. I'm not involved in any official capacity, so if you're interested in getting involved, please contact the BFA through their website.

Here's a link to Artvoice's event calendar. It's pretty exhaustive, so I'm sure you can find something up your alley. You can search by a variety of methods, and you can click on the individual event for a map. There are a ton of venues for music and art near Allentown, not to mention the great restaurants mentioned in earlier posts. Have fun!

To go along with all the other good plays he made on Sunday, Sheppard made an absolutely brilliant play that really shows that he "gets it." For the doubters, may I present; Exhibit A: Cleveland's first drive of the 3rd Q. Pre-snap, Sheppard creeps up to the line on the LDE's shoulder and shows blitz. As the ball is snapped, Shep instantly recognizes a screen is coming and abandons the blitz and moves right to the TE who is the target on the screen. Drops him for a 5 yard loss to set up a 3rd and very long. He was probably the first defender to see the screen, and IIRC, if he's not there, there TE had some room to run. Maybe not convert the first down, but make the 3rd down play manageable. It very well could've been his assignment to show blitz and then play the man or flat zone, but it sure looked to me that he was supposed to blitz, but diagnosed the play so quickly he was able to adjust on the fly and pretty much kill their drive. Disclaimer: I was already high on him and expect him to be a truly solid MLB for years to come, so I can't say I'm surprised.

No, the complete opposite is true. Maybe you don't like the wildcat so much because you don't understand it. IMO, there are two valid arguments against using the wildcat: 1. The team doesn't have the personell, and 2. The package is proven to be ineffective over time (which would probably mean that the first argument is true). On the first point, it seems to me that the Bills do have the personell. You or anyone would be hard pressed to convince me otherwise, though this point is certainly debatable. On the second point, the Bills have not had a large enough sample to deem it ineffective. In fact, I'd argue if one looks at the production, it has shown to be pretty damn productive for the Bills, but again we are looking at a rather small sample size. I don't know if people are expecting every run to be 40 yards or a TD or something, but to act if there is some serious detriment to running the wildcat 5 or 6 snaps a game seems foolish to me, considering the success we've seen. Then again, it wouldn't be the first time I've felt many posters here aren't watching the same games I am.