Dan

I just don't get why it has to be unfair in those instances when the team that won the coin toss also won the game on the first possession. Why can't it just be the other team's defense didn't do their job in those instances? I guess that's our hangup. You think it's unfair, I think it's part of the game.

In some effort to put this all together, because I'm getting confused. So, here's what I got. Asked about but immediately said no: Gruden - staying in announcing Holmgren - in Cleveland Rivera - in SD, still in playoffs, but reportedly said he'll pass Brian Schottenheimer - asked, but content with the Jets Interviewed Candidates (or about to interview): Shannahan - said No, now in DC Cowher - who the knows. Fewell - probably just as a courtesy. Frazier - rumored to be top candidate Grimm - TBI this week? Potential Candidates still in the mix??: Harbaugh - at Stanford, but may be interest Garrett - Dallas OC, may be stealth candidate They want the job, but apparently Nix doesn't want them: Martz Billick They don't want the job, the Bills don't want them, but the posters can't seem to get it in their head: [*]Marty Schottenheimer [*]A dozen other old guys that are retired [*]Zimmer - Bengals DC, just given an extension (granted not may are wanting him, but this was the best spot for him)

See, all of those analogies would make sense if the team that won the coin toss always won the game, but in a significant number of games; that does not happen. So, trying to equate winning the OT coin toss to winning the game, is actually being obtuse. I also don't like the comparison to the college BCS system. Let's face it, we all know that's biased. People, like myself, advocating a playoff scenario are just asking for the teams to have a chance to play for who is best. Not have it handed to them by sprortswriters. Current NFL OT rules, don't give any team anything. They still have to go out and win the game. Yes, some of my examples have been somewhat exaggerated. But, I was merely trying to point out that there are quite a few complexities that will get brought up when you start guaranteeing both teams the ball. The current system has none of those potential questions. You score, you win. Now, with that being said, the best idea I've seen is the notion of first team to 6 pts, wins. That takes away the notion of a single long FG attempt beating you. But it also allows for the importance of getting the ball first and the defense having to stop them. Yes people have called me worse. No worries though, sometimes I've deserved it altough I'm not sure this is one of them.

Anyone care to guess what dish she was about to make.....

We saw it last night. My wife absolutely loved it! I thought it was pretty good. Yes, the story is a little tired, but it was still a well told story. I think sometimes people get hung up on too many of the technical aspects of movies and forget that some movies are just something to take your mind to a different place for a little while. In that sense, this was a great movie. Yes, this story has been told many times over, but so has Romeo and Juliet. Should we all just watch the orginal Shakepeare play or is it ok to enjoy the Westside Story or Romeo Must Die?

Obtuse. I love it. I've never been called that before. No, but what if you fumble the kick off? Does that count as a possession? Do you remove kickoffs fro mthe OT? And seriously, what if GB had gotten the ball fumbled on the first play. The Cards take the field and kick the FG - they don't even run a play. How is that any different than the first team driving the ball 30 yards and kicking a long FG? ou still had a team that didn't try to score and won the game on a long FG. I'm sorry. I just don't like it. I really think the current system is great. The playoffs and Super Bowl aren't always won by the best team, because its a 1 game, all or nothing, approach. There's immediacy to every play. Same with OT, there's an importance on every play, because any one play can end the game. The fact that a coin toss decides who gets the ball first is irrelevant. Because you don't have to take the ball, you can opt to kick away. So the teams still have say over the coin toss results (not to mention they choose heads or tails). Yes, there is an arbitrary nature to the coin toss; but for me, that just adds more to the excitement.

I like it... so he's fired then? No, no, they just fixed the clich. He's no longer getting paid. So, it'll just work itself out in time, less confrontation that way.

This is what I don't get. Seriously. If Cowher is definitely not coming to Buffalo, and he knows this, and he or his agent have told people such as Schefter; why not just say it publicly? They do a small piece about all the "potential" candidates that Buffalo has talked to. We know, for a fact, that the Bills have talked to Cowher thanks to JW. Why not just say, "The Bills have contacted our very own Bill Cowher, but he's decided to look in other directions for the 2010 season. So, no, our friend will not be in Buffalo next season." I mean, that's easy, respectful and still doesn't close the doors on him taking a job in Carolina or TN or Oakland or where ever. So, either Cowher doesn't want to officially eliminate the Bills offer, just in case all other potential offers dry up; or he's just a plain puss. I'm not sure which.

Am I the only one that read: Dear Buffalo Bills and Bills Fans Worldwide: whaa.. whaaa.. whaaaa. oh poor poor pitiful me. whhaaaaa. I have a suggestion, for the mods, can we just ban all posters that say they're done with the Bills and supporting this franchise, especially the ones that wish death on an individual or wish for the team to move? I mean if they're really done, they're no longer Bills fans so then they just become trolls.

Some very good points. I actually kinda like the first one to 6 points idea (I rounded up to a TD or 2 FGs). That would eliminate the long FG on the first drive winning the game and encourage going for the TD. BUt, it then puts the pressure on the other team to get a TD as well. It also solves the scenario of yesterday's game as well. Because you also bring up a good point about that. If you guarantee each team a possession, what do you do when GB gets the ball first, but AZ gets a turnover for a score. Is that game over? Or does the defensive TD not count so you can ensure both team's offense gets on the field? To take it further, what if there's a turnover on the kickoff? Does that count as a team's possession even though thir offense never took the field? IMO, this guaranteeing both teams an offensive possesion just leads to too many problems that have to be resolved with officials and rules. There's too much of that already. Let the teams play, the first one to score, wins. That's easy; its dramatic; its final. Although, the first one to 6 in OT is not a bad idea. Keep all the rules the same, just forces a team to get a TD or 2 FGs - no matter how they do it.

See, I don't thing the current OT system is stupid nor do I think you make it better by giving both teams the ball. So, much of the rest of your argument is flawed. The game isn't decided on a coin toss. It's decided by the players on the field. If your defense stops them, you can get the ball and win. Today's game proved that. Everyone thought whoever won the coin toss would score and win. Well, guess what.. it didn't happen that way. And that's why it's not broke. Yes. In an atempt to prove a point that you can never make everything fair and even. As was pointed out, even if you give both teams the chance to score; whomever gets the ball second is at an advantage because they know waht they need - FG or TD.

If the point is to make everything fair, why don't we look at the TOP at the end of the game and if one team's had it for 5-10 minutes more than the other, then extend the game so the other team can have the same amount of time to score? I mean it's not fair that the Pats* always get the ball for 10 more minutes per game than the Bills.

I was perfectly happy with it when the Bills beat the Oilers in '93. Given the scenario, the same as today's game, myfirst grief would be... how could we let them score 45pts! Not how we lost in OT on a FG. Which shows why Costas' opinion is irrelevant. When did he become some football rules expert any way? A FG is only considered a defensive victory when the other team gets the ball deep in your territory and you hold them to a 3 and out. If you let the other team drive 60+ yards and kick a FG, that's not a defensive victory in any circumstance.

Or leave it as is and allow for increased intensity, drama and excitement. I really dislike the "unfair" notion. The Cards should have won it in regulation, but missed an easy FG. So now they deserve a shot in OT? Why? The only change I think they should consider is whoever gets the ball at the start of the game gets it first in OT. It would add more controversy/strategy to the decision to defer the opening kick off.

Championship.

I'd rather see him be a little over the top with religion and thanking God, than see him all thugged out, pimpin up to his pose.

Only because it hurts our draft pick. Yeeeeaahhhhh Draaaaft!

Well, at least the Packers aren't laying down like the Pats* did.

Seriously, does anyone even pay attention to the fact that Marty, himself, has said he has no plans to coach again. It's not some inside scoop from a bartender or an internet blogger. Marty, when asked, has said he has no plans on returning to coaching. So, why, why ,why do we have to continue hearing his name brought up as though there's some chance he'll magically change his mind? It's the same with the Billick talk. For all his comments, the Bills still have not comtacted him. Doesn't that say it all right there? For whatever reason Nix doesn't like Billick. Who knows why but it apears to be the case. It's pointless to keep bringing up Billick's name when he hasn't even been contacted by the Bills several months after the HC job became available.

Somebody needs to ask TG about this. Maybe he's heard something?

ok, to be fair, the Refs let the Ravens get away with that non call. missed FG! Sweet.

..and now a horrible! spot.

No joke. Where's the replay of that?

And I'm not sure he'd be a completely bad candidate either. But, I'm also not sure he'd be he best candidate. However, I'll follow that up with... I'm really not sure who would be the best candidate. I guess that's why I tend to take the stance of.. in Buddy I trust. I would defintely like an established, proven winner first. I know you dislike Cowher, but IMO, he'd go a long way to establishing instant credibilty to a franchise that's been floundering for a decade. After Cowher, I'm not that excited about any of the former HCs though. And despite the Ralph is cheap mantra, it's hard to ignore all the recent success of first time HCs. So maybe a Frazier, Gimm, Zimmer isn't such a bad idea. For the record, I really dislike the JH guy coming in from Stanford.

Ralph's so busy meddling he doesn't have time to learn anyone's name. He just tells them what to do and finds ways to not pay them anything while they're doing it.