Buftex

I suspect most didn't even read it. We just seem to have a need for a "Jerry Sullivan sucks" or "WGR sucks" thread about every other day. No matter that most will be saying the same things that Sullivan is saying, if things don't go well with the Bills...but he is unqualified to comment!

I had the same problem with "The WIre"... I started that show three different times, before making it all the way through. It was great, but, like Boardwalk, I think more enjoyable when you have a backlog of episodes to watch, than waiting for a new installment every week, stretched out over 5 years... story just has so many detours and shades, it is easy to forget stuff.

Okay...sorry, didn't mean to mis-characterize your stance by using the word "additional" instead of "some". I guess enforcing the laws we already have in place would be a place to start. Has anyone, seriously, advocated taking all guns away from everyone? I have not heard that. That is what we are talking about..."some" regulation. Yes, 3rdning...the tired old argument about all the other things that cause deaths. I am sure you would be falling all over yourselves to support reducing speed limits, doing away with ethanol, etc etc... you (and others) are so sure that these laws won't do any good, but have no real solutions to offer...so we are back at square one....lets do nothing and hope nothing ever happens again. Lets' give lip service to "mental health" issues, lets' arm everyone.... and if you are being inconvenienced as a gun owner, so be it....it shouldn't be as easy. The comment about "toys & gadgets" was merely me mirroring Rob's rather cynical questioning of the true feelings and motivations of people who are on the other side of the issue. The Sandy Hook shootings are just the latest, not the first, incident like this...at what point do you say "enough" and start the ball rolling to change the way we do some things? Nobody is threatening to take your deer hunting rifles away. We have more guns on our streets than any other country, and we have more murders than any other country. Maybe you can't draw the correlation that more guns equal more murders, but you certainly can't draw the conclusion that it is making things any safer.

C'mon man...I have been hearing since January of 2008 that Barack Obama is "coming to take all of our guns"... this is hardly the first opportunity anti-gun people would have had to "politicize" their point of view. You consider this "politicizing", while others might see it as an opportunity to give some meaning to such a hideous act. If you only know libs who were doing internal somersaults than I am sorry for you...you are surrounded by ****ty people. The impression many on the advocacy side are giving is that their right to have a few toys and gadgets is more important than the safety of some kids. I would really give some thought to questioning how bad people feel about something like this. In the immediate aftermath of this event, I remember hearing just as many on the gun advocacy side, like you, saying "this is just the excuse they are going to have to take our guns." Like they had to take the first swing, to make this political. From all the polls I have seen (I know, polls aren't an exact science) it seems as though most Americans are on the side of more gun control. And I know, like you have posted elsewhere, you are at least willing to acknowledge that some more restrictions might not be the worst idea. I haven't heard anyone from the NRA, or any other national gun advocates acknowledge this...none. It is just, "don't mess with me, or you'll be sorry". As I see it, there is a fair amount of politicizing on both sides of this issue.

I am a big coffee drinker...I loathe Starbucks' coffee...way too bitter! Incidentally, I once received a $50 Starbucks' gift certificate from an old boss...I turned around and sold it on Ebay for $48 and change...people really love Starbucks!

Best laugh of the day!

Yes, guns aren't going away, and neither are school shootings. The only "solution" offered by gun advocates is to put an emphasis on "mental health". Then, no doubt, the advocates will make the argument that the government doesn't have the right to tell them they are too mentally unstable to own a gun... so, in effect, the solution really seems to do nothing. That is what I am getting all of this...

Lets' see what happens when there is another school shooting...let's see what the gun advocates will have to say. I will bet, sure as ****, the role of any gun restrictions in the episode (or lack of) will be included in their take. I don't know anyone who was "giddy" about what happened in Connecticut.

Yeah, I am sure...

In all fairness to Nix, he "swung and missed" with Fitzpatrick. He is hardly the first, or only GM to have little success with finding a legit starting QB.

We'll know for sure in about 3 years!

A really good friend of mine is a die-hard Bears fan. He was always a supporter of Lovie Smith, until the last two seasons. As he pointed out, the team just consistantly, under Lovie, just fell flat on their faces whenever they were faced with any pressure to win...and when they won, it was mostly of the 'ugly win" variety, playing down to the perceived level of their competition. When they needed to beat, but couldn't, the Vikings to get a playoff spot this year, my buddy said, "in some ways, I am relieved...they would have got bounced in their first playoff game, and Lovie would be back again for at least one more year of mediocrity". The players all spoke out about how they supported Lovie Smith, but they never played like it on Sundays. For as long as Smith was in Chicago, his success was pretty front-loaded to the begining of his tenure. I am sure he is a good guy, and a good defensive coach, but, I for one, never really want to see the "Tampa-2" defense in Buffalo.

That's a little tougher, and it is hard to describe it, and make it sound good.... I'm afraid if I try, it will sound bad. My sister kept urging me to watch it during the first season. She kept telling me "you will love it"...when I asked her what it was about, and she said "it's about a guy who works at a NY ad agency in the 60's", I had absolutely zero interest in watching it. Then, she gave me the first season on blu-ray, for Christmas (she really wanted me to see it)... not wanting to be a jerk, I watched the first episode with her, and was immediately hooked. The show is very deep, even when you aren't thinking about it. Some people focus on the time capsule aspect of it, which is pretty cool. The main character, Don Draper, is pretty layered...on the surface he is a pretty-boy, womanizer....but under the surface he is dark, pretty cynical, but hasn't given up on the notion of figuring out what "it" is all about. He is pretty existential... but the interesting thing to me, is that Draper (who IIRC is supposed to be 34 when the show starts) is kind of reaching the heights of his profession at a time when his strengths are a great tool...but he is already at a point where youth is going to pass him by....and he may not see it coming. Sorry....I am doing a horrendous job here...just a great, adult, show. It was created by Matthew Weiner, who was one of the two hand-picked creative guides for "The Sopranos" (the other was Terrance Winter, who created "Boardwalk Empire"), and while it is not at all similar plot wise, "Mad Men" shares some similarities with "The Sopranos" in that they feature characters with as much texture as you are going to find anywhere. Tony Soprano and Don Draper are as different as two guys could be, on the surface...but they are driven by many of the same demons.

Well, not true...IRG to the 50 game qualifier. Tom Cable (17-27) and Hue Jackson (8-8) are both on the list. Gregg Williams (17-31) also falls a little short. Cable only made it to 44 games with the Raiders, and Jackson only a season. Funny thing is, IMO, Cable was the first Raiders coach in some time to start turning that pathetic ship around...but his off the field stuff got him fired...he was a pretty good coach...and Hue Jackson actually did pretty well too... partiucularly in the case of Cable, they might be in much better shape now if they had stuck with him. I don't think this list is very credible. I will risk ridicule, but I also think Mike Mularkey was the best coach the Bills have had since Wade Phillips...not saying much I realize, but he was miles better than Dick Jauron, who replaced him.

You can't wrong with either one... two of my all-time favorites....I will say, if you decide to go the "Boardwalk Empire" rout, it actually is better to watch them in rapid succession..it has a pretty thick story, lots of characters....it took me about a half season to get into it fully, because, I think, I was just forgetting too much stuff...recently started re-watching season one (after a stellar season three!), and am enjoying it immensely! "Mad Men" is terrific as well. The new season is set to start at the end of March (I think), so if you want to get caught up in time for that...go with it. Having to choose between one or the other is tough...but console yourself in that, whatever you choose, you have two great shows to watch.

I don't agree there, at all... "Mary Tyler Moore" was/is one of the greatest sitcoms ever (not to mention one of the most influential)...love "Dick Van Dyke Show" too, but Laura Petrie was the "straight man"...DVD was the comedian... Okay....just to piss Chef off, I am inviting Mary Richards, along with Artie (Rip Torn on "Larry Sanders"), Louie DePalma (Danny DeVito on "Taxi") and Bill (Martin Star from "Freaks & Geeks")...I think my chances with Mary would be pretty good, given the competition!

Little too young to remember Rauch....but in my cognitive Bills lifetime (1972-present), I would have to say Hank Boullough was the absolute worst...I would be tempted to let Kay Stephenson and Dick Jauron fight it out of the #2 honor.

A man of impeccable taste! I might invite Mary Richards along....

Funny...I work with music all week, and I love it..but sometimes I want to hear anything other than the "greatest new band"...but yes, in general, music is always a better alternative.

I can live with that...as long as the right Harbaugh wins!

Yes...the pre-game shows are just a re-hash of things you have heard, over and over again, all week...I will catch a few minutes at the bar, waiting for the Bills game to start...but I make no point to tune into one of these shows. Only exception might be the NBC Sunday night pre-game, as it is the first packaged look at all the games that week....and whether people like Costas or not, he adds a little bit of legitimacy to the "journalistic" element that these shows used to try to have, when they were more relevant. In general though, other than actual games, I think sports are suffering from over-exposure these days...

I bet Jennings ends up in Miami... maybe Driver takes a little less to end his career in Green Bay.

Completely agree...but I think he has "too much" talent that some team is going to pay more than the Bills are going to want to pay to keep him. They can't pay everyone... I remember that the Broncos were rumored to be very interested in Leodis a year or two ago...there was even mention of him being the center-piece, from the Bills end, in a trade for Tebow...at that time, there seemed to be the perception that league sources felt McKelvin was a "superstar" waiting for the right place to thrive.

He caught everything in college...not sure what happened in the pros.

Ogden, Charles Haley, Larry Allen, Strahahn and Parcells are all shoe-ins, IMO. If Haley doesn't get in right off, it is only cuz he is/was crazy as hell off the field. Not necessarily a huge Strahan fan either, but, he made a big impact in a large market, and (for some inexplicable reason) seems to be a media darling. I can honestly see Reed, Carter and Brown all getting stiffed again. Although, it would be weird if it was a class comprised totally of big, ugly dudes.