The Dean

I don't get it. Stern isn't that funny.

No doubt. Well, some doubt, actually, I suppose. But you are probably right for the most part. They call them flaws and mistakes but don't really consider those to be faults. I might ask how many flaw, or mistakes, are acceptable to them, before they start thinking "we need to work on this". But mostly my point is about musicianship. I freely admit to never having been the biggest rock and roll fan. The music that influenced me most, growing up, was soul music, R&B and jazz. You played with Ray Charles and you better be good--and tight! James Brown was known for being very demanding on his musicians. The horn charts for these guys required chops and attention to detail. So the "rock" I listened to tended to reflect many of these same attributes. A good example is Van Morrison. Van is rooted in early R&B and the blues. Early Van is very raw. and it's decent. But Van's music grew and morphed--and improved, IMO. Astral Weeks is like nothing that came before it. Then jazz started to influence his music. Traffic, Santana, Zappa, The Band---this kind of rock demanded some musical acumen and required a degree of instrumental proficiency. The new wave/punk thing to some extent was a reaction to the excesses in production of disco, and stuff of that ilk. I understand that, to a degree. But even some of those early new-wavers, grew and developed and embraced some musical proficiency. Joe Jackson and Elvis Costello come to mind. I happen to like Jackson, and find Elvis a bit of a bore, but I respect both for growing past the three-chord banging of their roots. Anyway, I think I've made it clear that I'm not really a raw rock and roll fan---and that I'm an obnoxious music snob. Ignore me.

I have no idea what you are talking about or why that thread is relevant. I don't even see your post there. But what does any of this have to do with my response to your question?

I get the "warts and all" approach. I'm not the biggest fan of it, but it has a certain charm. That doesn't preclude someone from working on becoming a better, more accomplished, musician. I think "raw and untrained" is a great place for a teenager to start. If they are serious about music, I figure they should become trained and hone their skills. Mistakes are fine, let them be in production if you want, but I'm thinking you work hard to avoid them in the first place. And seriously, how hard is it for the lead singer to work on his vocals a bit? Miles Davis said something to the effect of "It's the notes you don't play that matter." I think, "I can "not play" those notes and I can't even play." I'm kidding of course--well to a degree anyway. And I don't equate adolescent with youthful, but I take your point. On living with a youthful outlook I believe we can agree. But while one accepts their faults don't we try to correct them (at least those we perceive as actual flaws)?

I listened to to him for years, and stopped when he stopped making me laugh. I no longer listen to him by choice, but do sometimes come across his bits on the Internet, TV , etc. I rarely comment about him on message boards. But when I do, I do so using what experience I have listening to him. Are you suggesting he is secretly funny, and the stuff people tend to post is not the good stuff? Maybe he's just not funny on TV? Has he dramatically changed his style and topics discussed? What does he do now, that is much funnier than what he was doing when many of us stopped listening to him?

It seems fairly clear you are weak mentally.

I listened to about 2 minutes and got bored. I haven't found Howard funny in many many years and this didn't seem to add anything. I suppose it might get better, but I have no reason to continue to listen. I also have no idea what a "whack packer" is, but I have to assume it is Stern's take on the Rat Pack. All in all a very unfortunate story.

While I have absolutely no clue who he is: RIP ya little bastard!

I refuse to read through all this crap. But I will say EJ played a pretty poor game today. A definite step backwards, in may respects. Would I hang the loss on EJ? No, this was a team loss. The entire team looked flat coming out. (For whatever it's worth, the crowd wasn't particularly loud or excited today, right from the start. What happened?) EJ did show progress in one area though. He managed to slide in the pocket and escape a few times, tossing a couple of completions. That's fairly new for him. But overall, he played a rather disappointing game. I'm still reserving judgment and understand he is a work in progress.

Report from Buffalo on ESPN Gameday said Chargers practiced earlier all week and flew in on Friday instead of Saturday, to account for the time change. Apparently they don't believe it is meaningless and they prepare for it. But they do seem prepared, so it probably won't make much of a physical impact. Mental impact? Who knows.

I thought about bringing up Losman, then reconsidered. I figured, why ruin a perfectly good and positive thread, that has nothing to do with his on-field ability. I figured it would be Mr Weo, or Dwagg who would ruin the thread. It is true, Losman was all-in with Buffalo and seemed to be a very good guy. I rooted like hell for him, too. He didn't work out. This thread is all about EJ being, seemingly, a great guy. And that it is a pleasure to root for him.

It's too late to stop now.

Ah, we're resorting to the OC insanity.

Not really foreign to any team. But I haven't seen THIS team do that yet. Let's hope they can continue to stay hungry, irrespective of the opponent.

Let's just touch on a few misconceptions here. This is not a particularly small sample size.And unless I'm mistaken EVERY game (that qualifies) since 2004 was chosen, not just a sample. Yes, the comparison wasn't controlled for team quality, but I'm guessing that was probably self-controlled by the diversity of teams and the number of years included. Still it would be nice to compare these results to the records of the team. Study's often find "common sense" is total bulls#it. Common sense changes over the years. Common sense is what is generally believed by common people. Common people tend to be clueless morons. Apparently that common sense is not so common. Some posts in this thread make the mistake of taking personal experience and generalizing it to another area. Bad science! Outstanding! Why is it so hard to believe traveling across time zones might have some impact? Isn't playing at home generally considered an advantage? I'd suspect (I have no evidence) that the longer the travel, the bigger the impact, maybe just slightly bigger. Seems like when families take trips, the longer they have in the car together the more they are likely to fight. (OK, now I'm making stupid comparisons.) Eastern Time Zone teams also have a losing record when traveling west. In general, I think people have a tougher time traveling east than they do west. At least that's the way I recall it. I believe if you controlled for team quality, and went back further in time, you'd likely find some small effect from traveling, from traveling across time zones, and from traveling west to east (in that order of effect). But I'm guessing, I don't have enough data to make the call. i would also note that any pattern probably has no definable impact on any individual game. So I wouldn't count on that possible effect to be the difference in today's game. I prefer the effect of the Williams boys putting the hurt to Rivers..

Glad to see we're on the same page with U2. Although I never liked, nor respected them.

I am gross and perverted. I'm obsessed and deranged.

Really? His rookie season he got zero starts. Played in only three games. 9 for 16 passing (56%) for 65 yards. 0 TD and 1 INT. Maybe he looked good in preseason? He didn't get any appreciable playing time until year 4. And he started looking great.

Thanks.

Newsflash!!!! Wow, what a remarkable observation. Yet, even Rob Johnson left walked off the field with his team safely ahead and poised to win a playoff game. Something Doug never could never manage.

The thing is, I never had any problems getting into the game before the remodel. Typically I started walking to the stadium and while I was walking toward the gate closest to my seat, I'd just pop in at any gate that had a small line.

The Bills won games with Flutie as QB. Sometimes Flutie make great/exciting plays late in the game to help the victory. But he never QB'd the team to a playoff win.

Then I guess it would be tough for me to avoid them. Seriously are the all the same size? What about the "front door"?

Agreed on all points. I agree with this, too. If the Bills knew they were dealing with a contractor who used these practices, then I believe they have some responsibility. Not mine. Never got the whole cheerleader obsession. But I know some guys (and women) who do. I don't really get all the bells and whistles some deem necessary these days to improve the NFL gameday experience. A comfortable place to watch the game, with great sightlines, easy access to bathrooms and refreshments and a decent scoreboard are all I really need. I'm there to see the game. I don't need halftime entertainment, cheerleaders, crappy music, the wave, etc. I'm officially a grumpy old coot when it comes to this crap.

Are they all the same size, Jack? I believe I read there would be one particularly "super" gate. Well we are already hearing about one gate where things didn't go well at all. Another gate, closer by, might have helped relieve some of the pressure. I don't know (as I said, I have no business posting in this thread), But that was my expectation when I heard they were reducing the number of gates.