Grant

You, as a poster, have impressed me with your ability to talk, unashamed, about how you changed your mind about Bledsoe. At one time you were one of his biggest defenders and then you eventually decided that he wasn't the right QB for the Bills. This is actually quite something on TSW, because on this forum it sometimes seems like you had to have been right from the very start and you always knew right along. Here, people just love to be able to say "I told you so" and such. It's just something that I've noticed about your posts, in general; keep it up.

Mike, Approx. how many times have you heard the expression "You're so full of mularkey, Mike" or variations on the same joke in your life?

I think I ought to re-iterate the original question of this thread since nobody really addressed it. Are you comfortable with the braintrust appointing JP as a starter rather than having him earn it against a veteran? Should we bring in a veteran and have the two duke it out, or should we bring in a veteran that knows that he'll be the back up no matter what?

That's not real.. is it? There's no way Donahoe would draft someone compared to RJ, would he?

Anyone else have some thoughts?

I tend to agree. And if we decide not to get a viable WR in Free Agency, I wouldn't be disappointed with giving Freddie/Jonathan/Jim Doe Smith a shot at the position.

Even so, I fail to see how Losman would have shown the braintrust anything that would indicate he ought to be the Number One QB next year, without question. He's only now come back to Buffalo to begin working with Wyche, Mularkey and Clements, and last year he appeared to mainly be playing catch-up. The point is, from what we've heard so far (and you can question it's reliabilty, but this is obviously all hypothetical anyway) it seems like the Powers That Be are appointing Losman as the starter next year, similar to Carson Palmer's situation last offseason. Is this a good or bad thing, do you suppose? I've already expressed my opinion in the original post. Just trying to encourage some thoughtful discussion, you see.

Although I agree with the move to release Bledsoe if he won't accept a potential demotion, I am uncomfortable with the recent news that Donahoe wants Losman to start next year (see TBD front page). Losman needs, I think, a back-up that is solid enough that they could possibly start if Losman's progress isn't quite where it needs to be by September. It sounds like Donahoe is making what should be Mularkey's decision, which is a depth chart decision. I still believe that we need to pick up a viable QB alternative that would provide a real quarterback competition this season and that Losman ought to earn the job, not be appointed by the General Manager. Thoughts?

I thought that the whole idea behind arguing on TSW was to make up an argument and then repeat it as often and loudly as possible. For instance, when people critiqued Bledsoe's play, people would make it out as if the critiquer had a personal vendetta against the man. It didn't matter how false it was. So, it goes both ways and all sorts of ways, really. Incidentally, have you ever noticed that it seems like these sorts of threads always tend to have the same basic structure: -Original Post makes some sort of statement. -Someone that disagrees replies with a counterpoint. -Someone that also disagrees replies with a tongue-in-cheek "What are you doing, letting facts get in the way?" invariably followed by a smiley icon of some sort. I can't even begin to count how many times I've seen this post from tons of different people. Was it ever funny? -Then a bunch of other people reply with unoriginal thoughts that are basically variations on the first two posts. -And occasionally someone points out the routineness of it all.

I wasn't aware that they made any official merchandise using the secondary logo. Since that logo seems to have been virtually scrapped, that would make this item (if it is official) quite the collector's item, actually...

You must be joking. Oh, wait. It's you.

73 is my high after 3 tries.

Well, Freddie wears only a B cup and Josh is a double D, so yeah, it's definitely Josh.

One word. Catwoman.

Are you interested in film noir? There's, obviously, a lot of noir films that I would reccomend - start with the Killers , maybe. You can't go wrong with the Criterion Collection.

It's interesting how many conspiracy theories George Herbert Walker Bush is involved in. I also read how he may have been behind a John Lennon assassination conspiracy and and the attempted assassination on Ronald Reagan.

The fact that you're even having this discussion is proof enough that their ad was successful. You remembered it was Busch that ran the "Honoring our Troops" ad. They win.

You and everyone else, brother.

Also, breaking up your thoughts into paragraphs makes it a billion times easier to read. Just FYI.

I don't think Milloy should be lynched for his comments, because I think 99% of NFL players have that mindset. It's just, you know, we can be envious of the Patriots success without hating our own players.

I hope that keeps you warm at night.

Yeah, Helter Skelter is a good song, but the NFL was incredibly strict - even with Macca. They went over all of the lyrics to the songs he proposed to make sure nothing "offensive" or "inappropriate" would be performed. Helter Skelter wouldn't have even made it out of Paul's lips before the League shot it down. "Drive My Car" isn't talking about a car, either, you know. She's A Woman - or, really anything that showcased Paul's great Little Richard impersonation rock voice (you could go with I'm Down instead of She's A Woman, since they're in that same vein) would have been a good choice. The lyrics were meaningless at this point because they're pop staples - everybody knows them. I agree. This is in large part because MTV is no longer producing the half time show, thankfully. Still, isn't it ironic that a Beatle - who, back in the 60's were considered just as offensive/corruptive as, say, the Janet Jackson show - is the one restoring "moral values" to the half time show?

That's the interesting thing about New England, though, isn't it? And I think this is the point that PTR was making - players that want to win will take less money if they are convinced they are going to sign with a successful franchise. I'm not convinced Brady will ever demand Manning-like money (although I agree he would deserve it) as long as the Patriots are successful.

Did you have to post this tonight?