AKC

The general boundaries of South Central are not the old South Central neighborhood that ran three or four blocks of Central Ave., instead from MLK Blvd. south to Imperial Highway and from Western to Long Beach Blvd. would be the footprint. The Coliseum property is on MLK. USC is adjacent on the north side, sparing it from being in "South Central", but really for cartographers only. Here's a little news from the SC campus yesterday-Campus Adventures South Pasadena is about 3.5 miles from the Rose Bowl, and it's far safer than the area surrounding the Coliseum. In fact the Coliseum is closer to Reginald Denny's favorite intersection at Florence and Normandy than SoPas is to the Rose Bowl. I've gone to plenty of games at the property, but I'm merely taking my own life in my hands going down there. I wouldn't do it with a kid or wife, and I've heard many, many Angelenos express exactly the same sentiments.

I can't believe that- he looks lighter in his legs than 2004. I'll pull games and look at the seasons side by side.

Problem #1 is that no responsible parent would take their family to a South Central LA game in the Coliseum. A USC player during practice a few years back was shot there by a stray bullet flying around the neighborhood. One of the LA Councilman, Mark Ridley Thomas, has effectively blocked every other viable option to using the Coliseum since he insists any team end up in his district, and in LA politics each councilman is like his own little dictator- the mayor here is an ornament. Once again the Coliseum of late has become the "front-runner" for any NFL relocation/expansion. And I can tell you as a resident for 20 years there's no way they'll do any better considering how awful the surrounding neighborhoods to the Coliseum are, Fort USC offering no indication of what you're up against when you travel to South Central LA. It's like building a windowless restaurant on top of a landfill and wondering why no one wants a window seat.

I fall to the other side of this. I think the weight Willis shed this past off-season has made him more tentative and less deliberate, not to mention less powerful. The things he did that I liked last year are gone- he looks much easier to bring down. I'd like to see him put that extra 15 pounds back on, maybe even 20. And I agree with McThrillis- the line we have is good at run blocking; when you consider how little blocking help they get from our TEs/backs they seem unfairly targeted.

Since the idea of a run of 38 point offensive outbursts does more for my libido, please do expound on all the ways in which the hag we've got right now in the bedroom with the shopping bag dispenser mounted on her side brings you greater pleasure?

Since leaving WNY I've lived in Atlanta, Chicago, Seattle, Houston and southern Florida. I've spent the last 20 years in an AWFUL sports town (L.A.) If we had an 18 inning game at Dodger Stadium, or especially at the Ed, there would be people leaving the parking lot during the 10th trying to get out beeping at those so stupid they were just arriving assuming the time on the ticket was Eastern Time Zone.

It's peculiar- you seem to suggest that someone were "exposed" so that all had power over him from that point forward. Apparently the NFC didn't get your memo. yawn.......................

I'm with you- I found HTown an above average sports town with good fans. Throwing a few back with Big Earl and Joe Niekro are some of my favorite "sports" memories.

Hmmm- Not my recollection of the Bill's games I attended in the Coliseum. I'd go so far as to say no more than 3 or 4% Bill's fans. But then my memory has always been challenged by my beverage appetite ;-)

He was definitely holding his knee- the good thing for Steelheads is he walked off- but a tear in the knee would spell a LONG layoff. OTOH, having CBatch your third option at point guard is hardly the worst thing a team could face.

Merely that point production is the major achilles heel of the 2005 Bills and it was a strength of our offense over the second half of 2004. You're correct that (like every QB) Bledsoe has his warts, and surely he's no fit for a team with poor pass blocking, but even with all the awful things about his game he was productive here. Lack of productivity at the QB spot has been tough on all the other areas of our team to date in 2005. We look like we can muster enough D to win if we can get 20-25 first downs from the offense; those measures were easily met by the Bledsoe offenses on most Sundays. We'll ultimately be better off, but I think maybe for a little bit different reason. Right now we might very well have a better record had we kept Bledsoe, because even with all those warts he does have a weapon that complements our WR squad much more so than the Cowboys IMO. At the same time the 2005 Bills have too many roster holes to be considered a threat in the post season. The prudent thing is to give the best effort we can to get in position to win, as the coaching staff finally did this past Sunday. And make no mistake about it- the coaching staff has Losman sitting to make him sit in the pocket. After all the speculation about how a mobile QB would help out our offense and make better use of our weapons, the coaching staff has decided they need to turn JP Losman into- well-- Drew Bledsoe! Bledsoe/Losman seems to be a perfect example of "be careful what you wish for". In my mind our coaches blew it by "wishing for" a mobile QB, and as a result they encouraged JP to run. It took them a few weeks of regular season starts to realize what a huge error that was, but they're apparently through it. Now we'll have to wait and see how many weeks JP has to sit and watch someone throw from the pocket before they'll try him out again. And the bad news all the way around is that the jackasses on this board who continue to spew hatred of a QB who played for us prove week after week just how little they understand the position by their need for continued attacks against a guy who seems to have landed himself in a good spot for himself and his toolbox. And since I'm hesitant to feel sympathetic towards anyone with a star on their uniform I'll confine my sympathy to the poor kids trying to make something happen with our current offense- it seems just a matter of weeks before the hate spewers will pick up their banners of vile to begin maligning another quarterback wearing a Bill's uni. Ignorance remains among the greatest of the shames.

If you wanted to weigh the other side of that theory you might begin by considering that for the last 10 games of 2004 we averaged something along the lines of 36 points a game.

It's beyond irresponsible to ask this guy to play in our run and pass D packages PLUS add extra snaps on offense. IMO just continued evidence of our coaching staff's failure to recognize and properly utilize the personnel on our roster. I'm beginning to question Mularkey's management acumen.

That's the point though- add quality DT depth to any defense and watch the overall quality of the D rise faster than adding depth at any other position. Watch quality DT depth walk away and watch your defense decline.

A defense can stay on the field all day if they have DT depth, a luxury of which we are bereft. Indy- there's a team with DT depth. Even when their offense isn't clicking they can rotate bodies into their line packages to keep guys fresh. We on the other hand entered the season with razor thin depth at DT and that's even been reduced. We are forced to rely on our offense to try and hold the ball for 20-25 first downs just to keep our starting DTs from collapsing from their workload.

Actually Gannon was the color commentator for the Saints game which means he prepared by watching fim from every game of ours this season.

Anderson played Sunday with a run stopper's base, something Ron just wasn't capable of doing. It will be very interesting to see if Tim can do it back to back weeks or if it was merely the opposing talent last week.

It's your lucky week. The "Black Sheep" of my family lives there- and he knows where everything evil lurks. I'll hook you guys up via email-

Another way to look at the quotes is that "team" seems to be pretty strong while the QB change is making the headlines. The quotes from Moulds and Evans seem reasoned and the ones attributed to JP suggest that he can understand if not fully appreciate the decisionmaking and he also supports "all for one" with the goal being win now. The young QB and his teammates all agree we should do those things that put us in the best position to win now. I'd say if there's anyplace where things are a "mess" it's out here in fandom, with some fans saying winning now is of less importance than developing our future QB while others side with the players, team and management by supporting winning now at all costs. Personally it seems it's pretty shortsighted to ignore the weakened state of our division and not do all in our power to win over the next 4 weeks. Reassessing at the split would seem to make a lot more sense as far as recognizing whether we have any realistic shot at the playoffs or if we've gotten too far behind to make a run.

Get this- Eric Moulds has been historically one of if not the most overrated Buffalo Bill's "stars" over the course of his career. He receives the paycheck of an elite WR but I can tell you that he has never- ever- been among the ten "best" receivers in the game simply due to his failed concentration catching balls. There is no "elite" receiver in the league's history who so frequently drops catchable footballs as Mr. Moulds. Is he a valuable, talented WR and a lifelong Bill? Yes he is, and he should be recognized for those things. Is he an elite WR in the NFL? Not today, not yesterday and not by any objective measure. He simply is not a consistent receiver, and in the scope of the game that's his #1 job.

You are, of course correct my dear. If I may be allowed to fully dress the turkey: "he's a whiny little beeyotch who has never caught the football as consistently as any of the best Wide Receivers in the NFL" Hopefully KHolcomb has paid note to this and feeds the steadiest of diets to one Mr. Evans, who has shown signs of posessing the hands of a true top wideout.

You and Simon have similar opinions on Holcomb's abilities and this is another of the things that in my mind strongly support the move. For Sunday. And maybe for another 3 or 4 games. But I expect to see JP play even Sunday if Holcomb discovers some life in our choking offense. The kid was put on display as an elusive guy in the mold of Michael Vick and he's clearly not. The coaching staff fell in love with his foot speed and they forgot to make him a QB first- and right now he's not even that. The kid himself is dealing far better with this than one body of our fans- he's said the team needs to do what the team needs to do and I applaud him for that. Last week was a game to gauge progress- out of conference, on the road- I saw enough progress for a little while. This week isn't a gauge game- this is our season. We lose to Miami we become a grasping team who can't afford any letdowns, and even the good teams in the league suffer letdowns. I'm looking forward to this football game to tell me more about my team than I've been able to decipher from the first 4 games while we've been bringing up the kid. And I think the kid at this point can actually benefit more by having the pressure taken off for a week- or maybe a few weeks. Not to mention our coaching staff might just benefit from it too. Hopefully when they bring the kid back they recognize that they have to make him into a QB first and save the acrobatics for later in his career.

You can't play in the Super Bowl if you don't make the Playoffs. We can't make the Playoffs if we throw away this pivotal game in our schedule under the excuse we're giving somebody "experience". Win. Now.

22 first downs from our offense would make our defense FAR more effective. It's not a huge leap from our season average. We've got more to gain than we have to lose at this stage of the season.

The discussion is about the decison to start Holcomb, not about predictions of the outcome of the game. I can find a lot of ways to justify a temporary change at QB, and when studying the backgound of Mr. Holcomb the supporting evidence becomes even more compelling.