Rocky Landing

Genny Cream Ale! Tastes like high school!

Nothing to see here. Hernandez was probably just asking his coach for advice on how to dispose of a dead body. Perfectly innocent.

I don't think it will, either. But, I think it's interesting. I had never bothered to look at the NFL geographically in that way before. I hadn't really considered how isolated the Seahawks are from the rest of the NFL. Honestly, I'm fairly ambivalent to the issue. I think there are several cities that could support a team. I think there's an upside to expanding. And, as I mentioned in another thread, there are ways the league has changed over the decades that I lament. It was once much more of an everyman's blue-collar game. (I think) Maybe I'm just being sentimental. Good post. Some context to the geographical perspective.

Just for some perspective-- a map of NFL teams. The Seahawks sure look lonely out there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:NFL_Labelled_Map

Born and raised in Rochester, but moved to the West Coast in 1990. I still go back once or twice a year to visit family. Courtyard by Marriot in Penfield is a great choice. But, and I cannot stress this highly enough: COUNTRY SWEET CHICKEN AND RIBS. They used to have three locations, but they're now down to one, on Mt. Hope Ave in a rather sketchy part of town. But, man are they addictive!. Totally worth the risk of bodily injury, and gastrointestinal discomfort. Sometimes, when I land in Rochester, I stop by for a quick Wing and Mac Snack before I make it to my parents.

And, if so, by how much? How many teams? To where? Europe? Mexico? Just the U.S.? This was brought up in another thread, and I thought it might deserve a thread of its own. Should the league expand? My initial thought is, sure, why not? But, there are plenty of things to consider. As I see it (and I hope others will add to this list) the pros, and cons are as follows: Pros: 1) Longer playoff season! 2) Immediately gives a boost to whichever local economies get a team. 3) There are few downsides to having an NFL team in your city. 4) Helps assure that the Bills never leave Buffalo. 5) Something else for billionaires to spend their money on. 6) More parking lots for people to tailgate in. 7) Potentially moves the NFL back in the direction of local pride, and hometown heroism. Cons: 1) Could more than 32 teams be too many teams? 2) For several years, at least, the newly formed teams would be at a disadvantage. The league would become more lopsided. 3) The overall skill level of the league would be diminished, or diluted. 4) Would lower the percentage of elite players. 5) Too many teams to keep track of. 6) Brett Favre, or Terrell Owens might come out of retirement. 7) What if Paris gets a team? Could there be anything more obnoxious than a French football fan?

You know, if they have that cute little guy on the sidelines during games, eventually he is going to drop a "brown" on the field. And, when it happens, the media are going to go nuts. I predict it will get more coverage than Michael Sam kissing his boyfriend. And that will be the last we ever see of Swagger.

What a morbid thread... Be that as it may, I have to question the wisdom of having an actual dog as a mascot when your team is named "The Browns." Who picks up after that thing, anyway?

I've never even considered the idea that the talent level of the NFL has been diluted. In fact, over the decades, I think it's certainly gone the other way. We now have high schools dedicated to churning out professional football players. I haven't done a search, but I also suspect that over the years, the average size, and speed of an NFL player has gone up. It used to be an everyman's, blue-collar sport. I love that there are elite players, but there's a line between elite, and elitist. Sometimes, the NFL reminds me of what's happened to the America's Cup in sailing, where it went from a millionaire's sport to a billionaire's sport. I think there has also been a slow shift, over the decades, away from football being a source of regional pride. Hometown heroes are a rarity. That didn't used to be the case. The question also is: should football expand internationally? Honestly, I don't think I could care less about that. The London game just annoys me-- I'm not sure why. And, just how diluted would the league become? 53x8=424. There are, what, over 300 million people in the U.S.? Sure, there would be a lower percentage of elite players. But, the dispersion of elite players to piss-poor players isn't a straight line. Thee are many more average NFL players than there are elite players. Obviously. I pretty much just rattled this whole post off the top of my head, so I might change my mind. Interesting topic, though. Maybe it deserves its own thread?

I might be completely alone in this sentiment... but I will miss his antics. And, I suspect the locker room will, as well. The penalties? No. But, I personally find the league's current allergy to anything resembling emotion in the end zone to be a downer. And, let's face it, it's gotta be pretty hard to keep up morale as a Bill. One of the things I appreciated the most about Steven Johnson, was his dedication to having fun.

True that.

Someone, somewhere on this forum (I think it might have been the author of this thread), posited the idea that in this league which has become utterly pass-happy, and has diminished the value of the run game, and running backs in general, we may be contradicting that trend and building a team with a ground game that may be absolutely deadly. I've been thinking about this myself, and it's an exciting concept. Having four decidedly productive running backs that could stay fresh into the fourth quarter sounds like a lot of fun to watch.

SJ, as you know, has not always play in the slot. And, if we had retained him, I don't think he would have been fourth on the depth chart. If Watkins is everything we hope he will be, SJ would've been our second most versatile WR, and not unlikely, still our most productive. Still, even if we had retained him, it's hard to imagine that it wouldn't have been his last season with the Bills. And, it's impossible to look past the crucial drops of his career (the only reason, imo, that this thread even exists). But, I still think it was a mistake to let him go this year, given the stated "win now" philosophy Whaley is espousing. At the start of the season, even by the standards of the SJ haters, we will have at least three WRs who are less talented than Stevie Johnson.

There's a difference in style also. CJ relies on his speed, and that's great. I'm not familiar enough with Brown to know what kind of running back he is, but many running backs rely less on speed and more on agility. FJ, for example, has the ability to power through people, and if you look at some of Emmet Smith's highlights-- even when he was getting older, but still productive-- he was like a human pinball. I think also that Hackett's fast-paced scheme requires depth at skill positions. If, as most suspect, we start the season with four good RBs, I believe we will see all four of them getting plenty of carries.

Interesting how as this discussion has slowly progressed, the poll has gradually shifted from "yes" to the no-huddle to slightly favoring "no." Many have pointed out that it doesn't have to be used so often-- only when it is effective. That is certainly true. What gives me pause are the statements that Hackett had made regarding his up-tempo, no-huddle philosophy. Here is a link to an interview that serves as a prime example: http://www.buffaloru...o-bills-offense On the plus side, the idea of running more plays to get all of your talent's hands on the ball is great. Four talented running backs? Get the ball to all four of them, and don't give the opposition a chance to adjust. Same with the receivers. That's a great philosophy when you have deep talent in those two positions, which we seem to have. What bothers me in this article, is Hackett's almost cavalier attitude regarding his up-tempo approach. When it was pointed out that his offense, last season, had run the third most plays in the NFL, his response was, "yeah, we should've ran more." It seems to me that the only way we would've run more plays is if we had made more first downs. In other words, if we had played more efficiently. I don't know that speeding up our offense would've increased our efficiency-- quite the opposite. There's a fine line between swagger, and arrogance, and I wonder which side of that line Hackett stands. Up-tempo is great, if your team is efficient. If your team isn't, increasing the tempo (IMO) isn't going to increase your efficiency. As I mentioned before, I want to see our offense running efficiently, against an opposing team, first. Then, increase the tempo.

Payday's not bad. Baby Ruth is better.

Whoops!

Although, Stevie did have more receptions, and more yards than Woods last season. I also don't think it's even relevant to compare Stevie to Woods. We easily could have had both. Personally, I wish he were still a Bill.

Still, it would be a pretty interesting market. I don't believe there is a city in the country with as high a percentage of its occupants vacationing in a hotel. Perhaps a Vegas' teams fan base wouldn't be enormous, but I'll bet all their games would sell out. It's a great idea, but I would add one team to each division, and add two games to the regular season, plus another bye week, making the regular season 20 weeks, 18 games.

I believe this is one of the things that comes with experience. Even if Manuel was good at reading defenses in college, that won't immediately transfer to the NFL. I think another issue with the no-huddle, is that it severely limits the level of communication between players. It's not just Manuel's inexperience that concerns me. Our receiving corp is young, also. That's what bothers me about Hackett's apparent commitment to the no-huddle. That lack of communication might work great in training camp, against a defense (our own) that they know well. But, once they're up against the Bears, for example, I think the huddle is going to be pretty important. I know that limiting of communication happens on both sides of the ball in a no-huddle. But, I have to wonder who that will affect more: the Bear's D, or our O? And, I don't want to wait two or three games to see if it works. I think we should get our offense running smoothly before we start going no-huddle.

I live in Los Angeles, and I would think that the Raiders would win an LA poll. There are still quite a few Raiders fans in LA-- you see a lot of jerseys at bars, and such. Plenty of Chargers fans, also. But, for some reason, I rarely see a Rams jersey. Personally, I'd love to see an expansion team.

Having a really deep backfield is critical in Hackett's fast-paced offensive scheme. I think the season will start with CJ and FJ as starters. But, Hackett has made no secret of his desire to run as many plays as he can. He wants to get as many hands on the ball as possible, so I suspect that Brown, and Dixon will have ample opportunity to move up the depth chart.

Maybe I'm still a little allergic to the no-huddle since Jauron's disastrous attempts. But, I'm a little wary of Hackett's plans for a no-huddle offense. I do believe we have the front line for it. An effective no-huddle, imo, requires giving the QB time in the pocket. I suspect EJ will have that. But, I also think that an effective no-huddle requires a lot more experience-- not just under center, but in our receivers, as well. We've given EJ a lot of weapons to succeed (hopefully, including protection). I just hope that the pace of a no-huddle isn't setting him up for failure. Thoughts?

I have not, nor do I expect, to see, hear, or read anything particularly enlightening from any interview any of our players has with the press this offseason. What I do expect to hear, are the players saying essentially what they are supposed to say. "I'm 100%," "take us where we need to go," "be smarter with the foot bat," etc. Even Watkins recent comments about "trust" with Manual were essentially banal. I think, as a fan, it's interesting to see these things on TV, just to get to know what our players look like, and how they sound. It allows us to feel more personally about them. But, that's about it. Of course, CJ Spiller made his platitudes that EJ will "take us to where we want to go..." What else would he say?

Done.