Buftex

I guess you are correct...the Steelers are desperate for a WR and bringing in Plaxico Burress...something most insiders swore they would never do...not that Evans and Burress are the same type of recievers...but I haven't ever heard a whiff of anyone be interested in even bringing him in for a look, after Jacksonville cut him. Guy was relatively healthy most of his career, and is still pretty young...maybe years of playing on some wretched Bills teams killed his passon for the game? Seems like his hometown team, Cleveland Browns, might have been interested... Funny that you say that about Moulds. I like Moulds okay, and I know he is revered here...but I think, after that one amazing season with Bledsoe (2002), he started to focus more on drawing pass interference calls than cathching the ball...it really used to piss me off...he would be flailing his arms and yelling at the officials before the ball even hit the turf... Oh well... if Lee really does consider his career over, it looks like Nix and company were correct in getting rid of him when they did. I thought it was nuts at the time.

Yeah, I think this season has been pretty great. Even love the less dramatic moment....the Easter dinner episode (one of those classic Soprano style "nothing happened" episodes) was excellent. I do think Gyp was added to give the show a little more of an emotional resonance..he is an obvious villan...the other guys, at times, you can't tell who is the "good guy" and who is the "bad guy". I love Buscemi, but, early on, I wasn't buying him completely, as Nucky. But the role is his now. It works for me.

At what point do you stop making excuses for guys not succeeding, and come to the conclusion that they may be part of the problem?

Okay, so my "dick move" was a good one, in the sense that the defense my opponent picked up (Eagles) only got him 3 pts. The Bengals, who I snatched up and left on my bench, got 18 points....in the end, however, the Texans defense, whom I played, got me exactly 0 points, and I got my ass kicked this week...my guys all underperfomed...my opponents guys performed beyond expectations, for the most part...damn!

I hate Rivers... he is likely an upgrade over anyone we have, but he just seems like a complete douche to me. I know that isn't real X's & O's stuff, but I just don't like the guy. If you watch him enough, you start to pick up on some pretty undesirable characteristics for a QB, IMO...he seems a little "pissy" at times....and, perhaps it is too many years spent in the stench of Norv Turner and the underachieving Chargers, but the guy just doesn't strike me as a winner. If he couldn't get it done, in his physical prime, with all the offensive talent the Chargers had over his time in San Diego, there is little reason for me to believe he would fare a lot better in Buffalo. Jaws did a breakdown on Rivers a few weeks ago, and was making the point that Rivers arm strength seems to be diminishing, and his already unorthodox style seems to be breaking down, and he is developing bad habits that his arm strength can no longer make up for. When Jaws was talking about him, he could have been talking about Bernie Kosar. Like Rivers, he had unusual mechanics, but was so good for the first 7 or so years of his career that he was beyond reproach....but when it started to go downhill of him, it went down fast... Now, maybe Rivers just needs a change of coach, or a change of scenery...but I don't think I would want to waste another 3 seasons finding out that he is done...

Exactly! Which always gives teams like ours a glimmer of hope. In all fairness though, Rypien had an extraordinary season in 1991, but the rest of his career was sub-par. He was the beneficiary of an awesome O-line. For just that one season, the Redskins had one of the most potent offenses up to that era. It wasn't the dink and dunk style of the 49ers, but a more wide-open big play offense that could also grind when they had to. They were really versatile, and didn't rely on a gimmicky game plan to dominate....and their defense wasn't too shabby either! And, as much of a d-bag most think Theisman was, he played in an era where offenses didn't necessarily rest on the arm of their QB, but relied heavily on his football smarts and "leadership" qualities. Theisman was a field general...you always knew he was in charge. A pretty tough guy, who really earned his opportunities. I always think Gibbs gets a little short-changed when it comes to discussions of the greatest coaches of all time.

I really believe that BB believes (and I think he is right to some degree) that if he makes the concept of playing the Pats seem like a daunting task. for the opposition, they tend to collapse a little quicker, in general, when there is adversity to overcome. The old cliche is that football is 20% physical, and 80% mental. The physical game is on the players, and the mental part is on the coach... how much of an edge is it, every week for your team to come out and know they can put up 35 points on anyone...and, conversely, your opponent thinking "jeezus, they can score 35 points on anyone....we can't let them get up on us by more than 10..." I really don't think BB runs up the score to show up his opponent, but, moreover, he just attempts to give his team the mental edge every week. He gives him teams the mindset that "they can't stop us", and his opponent thinks in the back of their mind "we can't stop them" How often do we, as fans, say, "they aren't really that good...you just have to get in Brady's face, their defense sucks, etc etc etc..." But the result is always pretty much the same.

I was pretty disappointed with it. It went from being a Beatles "Anthology" type treatment of about 10 hours, down to a 3 hour "full history of the band" to a less than two hour flik that didn't really have much of a narrative, and, was, essentially a "best of" all the recent Stones DVD releases put out by Eagle Rock Entertainment. There was nothing in there I hadn't already seen...I was expecting much more. In my view, this was just a 110 minute reminder to younger fans about the days when the Stones were "cool", and not the old guys they are now. Sort of a justifiacation, if you will, of the high dollar ticket prices they will, no doubt, command for a tour next summer...bummer. Really, they had a chance to sit down and talk to Mick Taylor, and Bill Wyman, the only two guys to leave the Stones a live to tell, and they had no insight to offer? I love the Stones, and I realize, the stuff after 1981 pales in comparison to their vintage stuff....but I still love the band...I would have liked to heard/seen more about what makes them tick now...other than $$$. The sort of glib "You can't stay young forever" comment by Jagger, right before they cut to the one modern day performance by the band (as the credits role) kind of pissed me off...no ****, you can't stay young forever..so, is that Jaggers way of saying, don't pay attention to the last 30 years of our 50 year career? I know Rico would urge "exactly!" Would have been cool to see what these guys have been biding their time with, all the years between tours, and infrequent albums. There was no new insight on any facet of their history. Anyway, Rico, if you want to see the full performances, just buy/rent "Ladies and Gentlemen the Rolling Stones", "Charlie Is My Darling". "Exile On Main Street", "Rock 'N' Roll Circus" or "Gimmie Shelter", and you will get about 90% of what made up this "documentary", and more performances than this thing had to offer. I will say, "Charlie Is My Darling" was far more revealing to me, as a die-hard Stones fan, than "Crossfire Hurricane". If this flik hadn't been billed as so much more than it was, I would have enjoyed it immensely....but it did not live up to the advance billing, at all.

Heard the guy who plays Rick (Andrew Lincoln?) talking about how difficult it was to get the original actors to call to get their voices for the episode...maybe Dale wasn't available! No Shane either!

Bruschi called it "getting in the oppenants head"...I think there is some validity to it. Remember, "you play to win the game..." Don't take the metal off the peddle, if it gives your team an edge. That said, yeah, sure I would prefer the kneel down to running up the score...but, given the choice, I would take winning 10-15 games a season every year, making the playoffs, winning a few rings...even if fans of 31 other teams thought I had no class...

I remember an ex-Pat player (Brushci I think) talking about this, after the last time the Pats blew the Bills out (you remember?)... he said, essentially, that Belichicks' philosopy, particularly when playing divisional and conference foes (chance the Colts could meet the Pats in the playoffs) is that he wants to demolish them, so, next time they play, the team that lost will always see them as a daunting foe, and if anything goes wrong for the challenger, in the back of their mind, they will always remember the last game and think "oh crap...here we go again". We can call BB classless, all we want, but it seems to work for him...c'mon, wouldn't you get excited if the Bills could lay those kind of points up, week after week, no matter who their foe was?

I find it very suprising, given the lack that many teams have at the WR position, that there is no place in the NFL for Lee Evans.

I got a love/hate thing for Chan...I think he has built a good offense, but he is too stubborn at times...and maybe, just too loyal to certain players. I have nothing against Tashard Choice, but there were just times tonight where he was just a momentum killer...and don't get me started on the wild-cat...it becomes less and less effective by the week...but he still calls it at the most inopportune times...sometimes I just think he tries to be too clever...and it pretty much never works. The refusal to give the bal to Spillerl in the red zone tonight was crazy. I loved the win, and they have looked pretty good tonight in most facets of the game...but Chan just seems to be fixated on notions rather than the facts that are presenting themselves before his very eyes. It is frustrating. I think it cost the Bills at least one game (Titans) and almost cost them the Cards game. Tonights' game was much closer than it should have been, and I think Chan's play calling contributed to that.

Colt is never going to be much better than Fitz...certainly not better enough to avoid, for another 2 or 3 seasons, really dealing with the QB situation. He is, to put it simply, more of the same... a good guy (great guy) with some talent, but not really more than mariginal NFL abilities. We already have 3 of those type QB's, after getting rid of three who fit that same bill. I would prefer to stick with Fitz at this point, and wait until something better than Colt McCoy comes along. Or, at least, somebody with more percieved upside than McCoy.

I know...I have only had the NFL Network since the begining of the season, but you would think, from the amount of attention they are given by the NFL Network, the franchise had just started existing on Monday... I just get the feeling these guys don't watch a whole lot of Buffalo Bills game film... when they do make any Bills related observations, they seem based on something other than what we see when we watch the games...not saying Mooch is wrong about Fitz, but I have my doubts. If he watched the last 2 games, you could see where he might come up with this...but it is not a very informed opinion, if that is the case.

The Bills made the mistake of drafting JP Losman in the first round, just because they wanted to say they had drafted a "franchise QB". If they make that same mistake again, then they are really no better off (maybe even worse off) than if they stick with Fitz another year, despite his erractic quality of play...you only pick a "franchise QB" if there is one available...the Bills experiments in terror serve as proof positive that you can't wish a guy into being a "franchise QB".

I went ahead with my "dick move"...I snatched up the Bengals defense (playing KC) so that my oppenant this week couldn't grab them. He has only one defense (Seahawks), and they are on a bye...he had to settle for the Eagles defense. In my nind, if you don't prepare for your bye-weeks at least a week ahead of time, all is fair! I have the Texans Defense, and I am never going to start the Bengals over them. My oppenant and I have been tied, record wise, for weeks now...but he has an edge, cuz he beat me once already. I need to beat him this weekend. Of course, there is no gurantee that the Bengals Defense will be any better than the Eagles (vs Redskins), but I have to do my due dillegence...tapping my inner-Belichick!

As has been said, to me, it looked like Fitz decided to throw the ball to Graham in the endzone, without considering other options...Jones was very open on the 2 yard line..better than chance than not that he gets in the endzone, or, out of bounds...

Love: White jersey, blue pants, white helmet with charging Buffalo Any variation of the current unis are okay with me (though I hate those fuggin' collars...I wouldn't buy a jersey becasue of that!) From the TD/Bledsoe era: I really kind of liked the blue and blue combo...any variation on the road jerseys were hideous. Overall, I hate any uniforms, like those, that have a stripe down the side of the jersey, that is supposed to be a continuation of the stripe on the pants..it just looks stupid. As I recall, the Broncos were the first to sport this look, and won back to back Super Bowls, and then everyone else started to follow the trend. As for the blue and blue thing...it is a common look in High School football (at least in Texas), and a lot of NFL teams starting doing that in the 2000's, For some reason, I think it looks better with some teams (like Ravens and Saints) than other teams. It, supposedly, looks more intimidating..so, if your team comes out playing like a bunch of taffy-asses (see Bills 2003-2012), it just doesn't look good.

Shatner is the only GM to ever pass the Kobayashi Maru... Darlene may be on to something!

Damn! I have been waiting for a Bills game to be featured on one of these...and I missed it...got called in to work! Anyone know when/if they will rerun this? Anyone have a copy they can send me....I can give you in$entive!

Exactly!

Do you consider it bad etiquette to take a player off waivers, simply to hurt an oppenants chance of picking him up...and perhaps, enhancing your own playoff position? It was a tactic I used to use with some frequency in earllier FF days, but was accused of "fugging it up" for everyone else. This isn't a free leauge...we play for a pretty decent size financial prize. Just some thoughts from you FF players. I have heard both pro & con sides of this argument presented on various FF blogs and podscasts...to me, all should be fair...

Hamilton is much better for Sabres coverage, IMO, than Bills coverage. He knows the game better, and is more willing to be critical of Sabres play. Plus, he offers insider insights (on the Sabres) that nobody else does...I remember him being the first, and only person I knew of to predict the debacle with not only Danny Briere, but Chris Drury. Around Christmas time of that season, he started talking as if he had personally observed that Chris Drury was not buying into Lindy Ruff anymore... I kind of thought, when GR signed on to carry the Bills games, they would get more on-air talent, and Hamilton could just stick to the Sabres. Perhaps with the lock-out, they just have to find something for him to do...

My favorit look....minus the Chippendale collars! Now, they just gotta win...