Just in Atlanta

I'm man enough to admit it is affect, not effect. Your lack of logic apparently is catching.

I'm offended you call yourself a Northerner. Are you implying as a Southerner I'm less educated or think slower? No? Regardless I'm offended. Therefore you're being insensitive to my geographic sensibilities. Further, beware the people who say words like "salient" and such. The intersection of race and political correctness is salient because that is what they are obsessed with today. The fact they don't get that we anti PC folks are anti "This is offensive (race) but this (x,y or z) isn't" is proof to the anti saliency. What if you don't give a flying !@#$ about race? Logic goes like this. Anyone vocal who is offended? No? Cool. Yes? Is it race related? No? Don't worry. Yes? It's offensive! You're a racist if you aren't! Absurd to the core.

I'm offended by the fact you don't know the difference between effects and affects. Yes, F the people who are offended by stupid ****. You miss the point entirely. As someone who is 15 pounds overweight, I am offended by your use of lighten up.

As someone who likes to win, and hates to pay bills, I am offended by the Bills.

Because it's a racial descriptor...that makes it bad? Indians OK (or is it?). Redkins bad. Is Seminoles OK? How is that any less offensive than redskin? Skin color is bad? Tribe affiliation is good?

As I said.

Giants are offensive to people with giantism. Or to midgets. When the midgets have their say in the public eye, watch out. The PC among us will deplore our casual use of this offensive word. Redskin is offensive because some people consider it so, and because it was once generations ago used as a less than positive moniker. Someday, Viking could very well be deemed offensive due to their violent exploits. I wonder if the people raped and pillaged by the Vikings centuries ago would be offended by our casual use of the word today. It is no different than Redskin. It may have once been an "offensive" name for American Indians. Or Native Americans. (Right moniker?) Because so, we who are not PC are considered to be crass, or even worse...the R word. Cowboys--is that a stereotype? Are cowboys uneducated? Political correctness is a disease of the mind. It leads to censorship, lost freedoms, and mindlessness. People afflicted with it cannot be changed because they feel they are in the moral right, because not offending is more important to their world view than freedom or logic or anything else. Oh ****. Here we go...

Of course you would. Blank is a wonderful owner. He's a wonderful business man whose created a gazillion jobs. And he's a wonderful philanthropic presence. But he can use his own wonderful money -- he has it -- not take it from the taxpayers to the tune of $300m-plus. This includes property taxes from the surrounding area and more. I would love a stadium. But it just seems insane to force taxpayers to pay for something that could be paid for by the people who are profiting off it. It's like Apple charging you to develop its next iPhone in addition to making you pay for one. Braves IMO have a good fanbase. Falcons, meh. I think the domed atmosphere, fervent SEC fanbase, and high Yankee transplant population, have a lot to do with it. I liken going to a Falcons game to going to see an opera.

My favorite part of the proposed stadium: The seats have a feature in which Mr. Blank's hand takes the money out of taxpayers' wallets. Sweeeet.

I can't watch these videos on BB.com. Can someone please tell me what plug-in or program I need? I don't think I have issues viewing other videos. Mac, Chrome. Thanks.

Dear Nick: Go play some cricket. Sincerely, TBD PS: "This quite simple, there is no change." ? Bloody Hell, please take an English class during your stay in England. At least be armed with impeccable grammar before you insult us.

http://butattheendoftheday.com/2013/04/22/more-and-more-nfl-teams-are-dropping-nikes-toilet-seat-necklace/ This ^ Not official, I know, just a blog post. And you forgot to say "I don't care what the uniforms look like as long as they win." I am above the age of 14. Cheers, mate.

Rugby collars. Neck roll collars. Toilet seat collars. Which ever moniker you choose, it appears as if this crappy design element is gone forever.

From another poster -- Cru Jones -- whose post was kiboshed. I'm not quite sure I understand where he got them from. http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/158036-havent-seen-anyone-else-post-about-this-but-did-you-notice/

On another note regarding our "reach" in the 1st: 1. We had no idea there wouldn't be a run on QBs in the 2nd. 2. We could have had intel -- Pettine, anyone? -- that the Jets were interested in EJ. In both cases NOT picking the guy we wanted in the 1st would be stupid.

I glad I never had you as a teacher. I can't really agree or disagree with anything you said here -- time will tell -- but it seems as if most, if all, of your posts are of a pessimistic tone ... which in hindsight is acceptable given the fact we have the worst team in football for the past 12 years. (I believed we were a 10-6 team last year, you probably thought 6-10). I will say this: I could care less about our supposed reach. The reach is based on what people are predicting, mostly parroting each other. I've looked at video footage. From this amateur's eyes, EJ looks better than G. Smith and Barkley. He also looks far more intelligent than Geno. I can see him carrying a locker room. Geno could very well get swallowed up in it in Jersey. As for squandering an opportunity to pick ANOTHER QB in the 3rd, I don't see the logic in that. If this crop of QBs were supposedly weak, why would we waste TWO top picks on them? Better to role the dice on the one you like, and pick him a round earlier than you think he'll be taken to ensure success. Further, we had too many holes to do something (foolish) like that. You draft a guy in the first, then give him mixed messages by drafting another in the 3rd? No, EJ is our man until he proves otherwise. As for Alonso, see above. He looks like he could be a contributor on Day One. Or not. Either way, the Bills got the guy they wanted, traded BACK to get him, and got more draft picks. I would have given them an A for that, if they hadn't gotten two safeties / two WRs, and instead picked a top OG. Otherwise, it's a solid B. Until proven otherwise.

Awesome. True fans! Mark Vader, I still wouldn't recognize you in real life due to your glasses. Your identity is still a secret ... if you care about such things.

Just when I thought we were having a good offseason, we release potential playmakers Aaron Corps and Chris Koepplin. Typical Bills.

Great thoughts. I would agree with BillsWatch. Unless there is something I don't know, our line isn't built for the deep game, it's built for quick passes. Will be fun to watch though. Look forward greatly to a Chip Kelly style uptempo offense, regardless of whether it's a WCO, spread, K-gun, read-option, or whatever.

Waiting for the obligatory "I don't care what they wear as long as they win" response.

Guys, if you don't see the difference between this (alleged) new jersey and last year's you're blind. The neck roll / rugby collars are hideous.

You should meet his brother Da'Slick

What we REALLY need is a guy who can play football at the pro level.

I was thinking the same thing, especially on that second WR pick. But then I remember two years ago, everyone -- pundits and fans -- saying before the season our O line was terrible. Then it became one of the best in the league in terms of QB sacks and rush per yard. Last year wasn't too shabby either. So we lost a top OG. I've got to think they have a plan to replace him.