Rocky Landing

I know it's a little early for any sort of speculation. But, being so early in the season, things are as open, and as up-in-the-air as they will ever be. So, I thought this might be an interesting poll-- especially if people are willing to elaborate. The options include our current roster, the top eight draft prospects, and the top eight free agents. Who should be our starting, and back up quarterbacks for 2016?

If Leo's an idiot because he was slow picking up Rex's defense, then there are a lot of idiots on our D. That being said, I would agree that, for whatever reason, Cro is the better CB, even if it is just for a Rex defense.But, I assume, his asking price would be pretty high for a second string player.

Just saw this leaked footage of Newton having a conversation with Goodell, post-game:

I agree with this. And, IMO, he's the most versatile player in our D backfield. He proved that when he transitioned to S from CB the year prior, and lead our team in tackles. How do you bag on the guy who was our best tackler?

Traffic.

I loath(ed) him.

Dick Jauron.

Having lived in Los Angeles for the last 25 years, this is great news to me. I'll always be a Bills fan first, but now I can be a fan of two teams that won't make the playoffs, year, after year, after year......

Rex Ryan feels the pressure for his dismal defensive showing and scapegoats Thurman. (EXTRA-BOLD: Brings in his brother to replace him.)

So what?

Not sure I agree with that last sentence...

There is no way I'm going to go back to this debate about whether Washington should change its name. But, I will say this: What strikes me as interesting is that the denial of a trademark doesn't restrict an organization like the Redskins from using their name in any way. It merely doesn't restrict others from using the name, or its associated logos, etc. In other words, the denial of trademark protection is not restricting the organizations free speech, it's restricting their ability to profit from that speech. So... is profit covered by the first amendment? Of course it isn't. There are lots of things we aren't allowed to profit from. But, as I read it, this judge is basing his decision on the belief that the government should not be allowed to judge the merits of intellectual property, or whether or not it is offensive-- that decision should be left up to the consumer, and the court of public opinion. Personally, I find the name to be in extremely poor taste, at best. I find no reason to argue with the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) on the subject. They consider it offensive. And, I know of no other organization that is more representative of Native American interests than the NCAI, anecdotal girlfriends notwithstanding. Be that as it may, I agree with this judge's ruling. There is a fine line here. The government does have a right, and a responsibility to protect minorities against discrimination. If the Native American community could show that they had been actively discriminated against, that would be an entirely different argument (one, I suspect they would lose). But, the question here is: Who has the right, or responsibility to decide what is offensive? In the past, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has held that authority. I don't see taking that power away from them as a step in the wrong direction. Are there birth certificates with the designation, "redskin" on them? Is "redskin" a "proper scientific term?" Of course not. That would be offensive. I think the better comparative analogy for the term "redskin" would be the term "ni**er." (that is as close as this site will allow me to spell that.) Although, come to think of it, I strongly suspect that a team called, "The Washington Negros" would be considered by most rational adults to be offensive.

Merry Christmas, fellow Bills fans. I feel like I know a lot of you. And, I respect you all. Thanks for being a huge part of my football education.

I think the argument could certainly be made in the context of having traded away McCoy. Does it mean this site will? I do believe there is a group of TT haters who will ignore, or dismiss this article.

That was the only game he threw more than 30 times. I was rewording Nihilarian's post. Sarcasm, yes. Jesus, people, follow the thread!

That's an interesting point. Another way of saying that would be that EJ looked bad in both the games he started, and looked good when he was in for a play, or two, and didn't have to throw the ball. And, Taylor looked bad against the Giants, and good in the other 11 games he started. How is that even a comparison? Is this board still having this debate? Seriously?

Were you in the bathroom for his final play where he missed the first down by inches? Sure, would have been nice if he didn't have to recover his own fumble, and had made the first down. But, there was no lack of effort.

Well, I'll say it: Tyrod was GOOD today.

Bring back Schwartz as HC, says my jerking knee...

What the hell is going on up in the booth??? Two MAJOR missed challenges!

I feel like a Bills fan.

I'm a "glass half full" kind of guy. Unfortunately, it's half full of sh*t.

[This is an automated response]<br /><br />This subject matter is being currently being discussed or has already been discussed in a previous thread. <br /><br />Please consider using the "search" function before starting new topics. <br /><br />Thank you. For me they will forevermore be known as the NE taint*riots

I know what yer sayin... Well, I could be wrong. I usually am.