Buftex

I meant I was disappointed, mainly, because it won't continue for another year. Your last point, are the reason I htink the last 7 episodes will deal primarily with Don Draper, and we might never know what happens with the rest of the characters. I mean, they keep hinting and playing with all these high-minded concepts, so to go back to more back-stabbing and fighting, for the last 7 episodes would just be kind of silly...at some point, the cycle will have to change, or there really isn't a point in extending things longer... I just feel like the merger/buy-out was kind of an end-run move that they have used a few too many times on the show. I didn't really like it as a "cliff-hanger" contrivance. Agreed there...the "When old men start talking about Napoleon" line was pretty outstanding!

I might be more willing to cut Zep some slack if they hadn't been such arrogatn a-holes in the past about not creditng writers of some of their other stuff.

I feel like I am watching a different team than so many here, half the time.

Okay, after digesting the "mid-season finale" of "Mad Men", I gotta say... I was a little disappointed. As always, there were great moments... but, yet another season ending with a merger and acquisiton...what used to be kind of a cool, unexpected move, I feel, they have gone to the well with a few too many times now... but whatever...that is business I guess. Of course, there is the whole Don/Bert scene at the end, to muddy things up. Will Don go along? He has already told the other partenrs, that he is all in on the buy-out from McCann...even talked Ted into going along...remember, they said they needed Don and Ted, in order to make the buy-out work. But, just as everyone is celebrating, Don sneaks out, has his Bert-vision, and you wonder if he has any intention of going along with it. Don seems to have turned a corner, of sorts, and has been treating everyone as though he appreciates them a bit more than he has in the past (except Cutler!), so this seems a little going against the grain. What was it that Ted wante to announce to everyone, before Cutler cut him off? Just that he wanted out? Or was there more? One quibble I have had with the show, this season, and last, is maybe they have just too many characters to give all of them enough face time...so there are a number of unexplained things. At the beginining of the season, Ted seemed like Ted...when he would visit the office in New York, even though he and Peggy had some awkward moments. But, the few times we see him in California, or when Pete talks about him, he is useless, and is, essentially, in California, just to answer phones. So, what happened with him? What seeemed like, essentially, a pretty grounded, decent guy, strayed from his marriage, and then moved with his family, to get things back on track. So, did that not work out? They don't really tell us, just that he is depressed, and hates his job. Is it just the California, hippy vibe setting in? Just kind of odd... seems like they have been leaving the viewer to fill in a lot of blanks as of late. As much as I like the Draper/Francis household story, it seems as those scenes are just kind of tacked on to the show, and don't really have much to do with the rest of the show. I think they are trying to show us how Don & Betty screwed up their kids... but again, not completely sure. For some reason, the words January Jones and "contractual obligation" keep coming to mind. Don and Meagan's break-up was pretty gut-wrenching...and handled well. Is that the last we will see of zoobie-zoo? You never know... Also really liked the way they incorporated the moon landing into every day life...it was a big deal (as I am sure it was at the time, for those old enough to remember...I was 4), but this huge human event, by the magic of television, is just kind of crammed into the every day mundaneness of life. Really loved them showing Don, Peggy, Pete and Harry watching it in the hotel room. I have a hunch that the final 7 episodes (in 2015!!!) are going to leave people feeling dis-satisfied, if they are the types that need things wrapped up nice and neatly. I am wondering if we will see much more of some of these characters in the final installments. The way the "mid-season finale" ended, it seems like Don is about to leave this world behind... maybe he goes back to being Dick Whitman. He seemed a lot more comfortable as Don Draper, in 1962 than he does in 1969. Funny, Matthew Weiner was on the "Colbert Report" this past week, to talk about the finale. Weiner didn't sound super-jazzed about a "mid-season finale", and pretty much conceded it was just the result of AMC wanting to milk it for all it was worth, because it did so well with "Breaking Bad". Too bad, I loved "Breaking Bad" as well, but it was/is a totally different kind of show...it leaves you with real-time cliff-hangers..."Mad Men" is not that kind of show. I just think this abbreviated, 2 part season thing, is really a bad decision on their part. If, like I predict, the show ends in an unconventional way, and leaves a lot of questions, I think it will hurt the legacy of the show. It really put AMC on the television map, and was a legitimate, adult show, that was a great pop-culture phenomenon. Kind of like the other show Weiner did, "The Sopranos". It was such a great show (still my favorite all time), but it lost some of it's momentum by taking over-long breaks between seasons, and its' ambiguous ending really left some people pissed off. As if the ending ruined the entire series. I think that is silly, but it happened. Colbert suggested to Weiner that he should have "Mad Men" end, speeding ahead in time, having Don Draper explain, with his dramatic flair in presentatons, for once and all, what happened in the final episode of "The Sopronos". Oh well...until next spring...

Since we are fantasizing here, McCartney has the money (one of the very wealthiest people in entertainment, a net worth of close to 2 billion...thought it might be more) and has shown some interest in American sports over the last couple of years, mostly the NBA. His hometown of Liverpool, I believe, is considered a "sister city" to Buffalo. Despite his extreme wealth, I am assured by a Liverpudlian friend of mine, that McCartney is the only Beatle to ever really "give back" to the town he grew up in, in any consistent way. A game in Liverpool every year, anyone?

I think Watikins, Woods and Williams (WWIII) will all have great years... but I am picking Williams to lead in yardage and catches, with Sammy leading in YPC average.

Beerball...not you too! I have to believe, if the Pats thought Mallet was a legit predecessor for Brady, they would never let him go. Read earlier today, Ryan Nassib could very well be cut this summer... this will come as a releif to all the Manuel haters who wanted the Bills to draft Nassib!

Rick James B word! If he is unavailable, I will take the glimmer twins!

Laugh at them for thinking that a Bon Jovi music ban is necessary? Who listens to Bon Jovi? Seriously...

Looks like Snyder has buckled..he is changing the name: http://www.theonion.com/articles/washington-redskins-change-their-name-to-the-dc-re,34161/

No dissent from me. I think it makes sense. If replay is there to make sure they "get things right" they should expand the number of things it can be used for. I think the reason they will never do this, you could have, say, an questionable pass interference call somewhere during the course of a game..we all know there are a few every game. Inevitably, one of these will cost a team a possession, or a first down...or whatever. So, say the coach of the penalized team wants to challange...they look at the replay over and over, we see it at home...looks like the refs got it wrong...but low and behold, they don't reverse the call, because it is, essentailly, taking the refs out of the game, and making them look bad. The NFL doesn't want that... Now, I still think they could expand its' use to a degree...but I just know they will never expand it to every play. The things that normally get fans, and coaches pissed off are the "judgement calls", or the missed calls. I just don't see them allowing those challenges.

What spurred this, was Donald Sterling offered to change the name of the Clippers to Redskins, at a last ditch efffort to save himself.

I like PFT...

I listen every night Ken...the archived version on buffalobills.com. Can't wait to hear you!

It didn't prevent him from being canonized. Either way, I don't think it is a given that, should he become owner, Golisano would treat the Bills exactly the same as he treated the Sabres. As has been pointed out, numerous times in this thread, there is a world of difference in owning a NFL team as opposed to an NHL team. NFL teams simply do not lose money...

That may all be true LabattBlue, but under the guise of not losing money (a stipulation put into place by Golisano), I would be very surprised if Regier wasn't responsible for the choice of putting all his eggs in the Drury basket, rather than Briere. I also think Drury was disingenuos with the Sabres to a degree. But, keep in mind, Drury did little for the Rangers, and was considered to be a bad free agent signing for them. His first season in NY was pretty unmemorable...he was okay his second, and then was just an injury waiting to happen the next season. I concede, there is no gurantee it would have turned out that way had he stayed in Buffalo (it appeared his tank was near empty...fwiw I thought he was pretty bad in his final playoff series with the Sabres, always wanted them to sign Briere over Drury...), but I think knowing what we know now, they probably would have either did exactly what they did (sign Vanek long term..which made sense, and was a good signing), or put the priority on Briere. So, the point, in some ways, is kind of moot, who is responsible for the Drury/Briere fiasco. Whatever his reasoning, financial or hockey (less likely I admit), it was a good decision. The money was better spent on the younger Vanek. And Vanek wasn't a total bust..just not enough talent around him.

I have come to the conclusion that many commenting on current or past Sabres owners as future Bills owners, don't really follow the Sabres all that closely... true that the Sabres have bottomed out under Pegula, but nobody can deny his dedication toward building a winner. His fatal mistake was in not cleaning house when he took over...Pegula appears to be a sentimental guy... a fan, like so many of us. Not advocating, necessarily, that a house cleaning would be appropriate for a new Bills owner (this season will be an indication), but it probably would have been wise for Pegula to rid himself of Darcy immediately. Pegula put too much faith in him, when the suit was already ripping at the seams... I think he learned his lesson, he went outside the organization and got a fresh set of eyes to run the team. He let the new guy get rid of players that Darcy, and he, just didn't have the heart to do. So, yes, the Sabres bottomed out this season, with a historically bad season... but is it losing, when you are really not trying to win? Their is a method to the madness.... As for Golisano, I don't know how to put it any simpler... he did hockey fans in the city of Buffalo a huge favor by, essentially, buying the franchise, and stabilizing it, until he could find a more suitable owner for it. He made it pretty clear, from day one, that he wasn't a "hockey guy"... his philosophy with Darcy was, spend what you have to and I am cool with it, as long as we don't lose money. Golisano was never in on the Sabres for the long haul, and wasn't looking to make a ton of money...his greatest interest in owning the team, was to make sure it stayed in WNY. Like the Bills now, as you may recall, there were plenty of rumblings that the franchise unstable ownership situation was making them a candidate to be re-located. The league was running the team at the time...and they weren't going to wait forever for things to settle down. Golisano seems to get a lot of **** from some people... I just don't understand that at all. The guy proved, in a big way, that he is committed to WNY. Now, if his intent, as it was with the Sabres, was to buy the Bills short term, and flip them to somebody who is committed to keeping the team in WNY long-term, I have no problem with that. We can argue all we want about what went down with the Drury thing....but as somebody pointed out along the way, rather astutely, Drury signed a huge deal with the Rangers instead, and did absolutely nothing in New York. As I recall, they had to buy him out, and he retired three seasons later, labled a bust for the Ranges, and a bad free agent siging...so whatever the perceived damage created to the Sabres, by not re-signing Drury, it may not have been real. It could have just been another long, bad, contract on the Sabres books...

Agree with your list. Must admit, I have kind of od'd on this topic..or maybe it is just too much anxiety for me...but has anyone reported anything in regards to Pegula being interested?

I heard them talking about the criterion for rewarding Super Bowls on the NFL Network the other day...or maybe it was Pro Football Talk. They were saying that, yes, the league likes to reward communities with new stadiums with Super Bowls...but a publicly funded stadium is their preference. That said, I think it would be a while before Buffalo received serious consideration. But, with talk of rotating the draft, it does seem that the NFL is open to spreading the wealth a little more than it has in the past.

What, your man-love for TJ Graham didn't do the trick? That said, I am going with Eric Ebron...

As I recall, Pegy's sister "adopted" the baby.

I think the only way you could have heard Van call that game was on the radio. Van only did the radio broadcasts for regular season and playoff games. Occaisionally, you will see an NFL Films highlight clip from the Comeback, with Van doing the play by play, but that audio would have been takes from the radio broadcasts. I have to admit, I was never a huge Van Miller fan growing up. But, I think part of the reason was that if I was listening to Van do the games, it meant that I wasn't seeing the Bills game, but having to settle for listeing to them on the radio. For the same reason, I never appreciated Rick Jeanarett as much, back in the days when Ted Darling was doing the Sabres. Now, when I hear John Murphy (sorry, I think he is alright, but kind of dull) I appreciate him a lot more. In fact, I listen the John Murphy show (or at least part of it) almost every night, and the opening with Van Millers' calls, jumbling players from all different eras, gets me pretty excited. Love that the first guy he mentions is Cribbs...from my favorite era of Bills football. For me, the Van Miller moment was probably the 1981 game against the Patriots. I had season tickets that year and used to bring a transister radio with me (I was that guy, people in my section seemed to appreciate it)... I remember, Ferguson had thrown a pic in the final minutes, everyone was booing him...people started filing to the exits....not me (have only left a Bills game early, twice, in 100+ games)...but the Bills defense held, and got the ball back for one last desperate attempt to pull the game out... the Bills got about 35 yards, down to the Pats 35 yard line or so... it looked like they had time to try one, maybe two, long passes to the endzone to pull it out. I just remember three Bills recievers (Butler, Lewis , maybe Cribbs) runnig down the right side of the field and getting absolutely swarmed by about six Patriots defenders....one of Pats linebackers swatted the ball, it went up in the air, and Roland Hooks seemed to come out of nowwhere to grab it out of the air, for the wiinning touchdown....Van was just screaming "OH MY...ROLAND HOOKS!!!" People started rushing back from the concourse to see what all the commotion was about.. A little taste of Van...I realize this isn't necessarily the greatest Bills moment...but if you want to hear him call a game...and realize, this is actually the 1981 Wild Card playoff game against the Chargers, not 1979 as the clip is labled. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvn4Xz8lrXA

I started watching/listening in 1972, when I was seven. As a Bills fan, while I realize the 90's were the "golden era", I think my sense of aesthetics and my appreciation for the game is pretty rooted in the 1980's. Though not the most successful, the Chuck Knox Bills teams are my all-time favorites... while the Bills were really woeful mid-decade, my understanding of the game took off in the 1980's, and my appreciation for the league (as opposed to just the Bills) really took off then.

As a fantasy football enthusiast, I almost always grab one of the most highly touted rookies available. Other than the odd running back here or there, rookies (WR in particular) almost never have any real fantasy football impact. If they do, it normally comes very late in the season.

It remains to be seen what our new defense will look like under Schwartz. If rumors of his "wide nine" scheme being implemented are true, it is very conceivable to me that Byrds greatest attribute (ball-hawk who gets interceptions) will have a somewhat diminished value. This defense is being designed to be stop the run more effectively, emphasis has shifted to linebackers, and run stopping safeties. Not saying Byrd was awful against the run, but the Bills may feel that they have safeties who can be just as effective in that role. Aaron Williams is much more physical player, and a better tackler. In retrospect, it was New Orleans all along.... I remember, about a month before FA started, and there was still a question as to whether the Bills would sign him, somebody here posted a link to one of those player survey/questionares. That poster was upset because one of the questions was "best fans in the NFL?". His answer was "New Orleans".