jad1

Yeah, we can call it the no sack/no turnover/stupid penalty defense.

Anyone notice that the Steelers are 2-0 with Roelithsberger starting?

Losman's injury really skews this too. If he were healthy, people wouldn't be talking about next year's draft pick, they be clamoring for JP to start the next game.

Actually, he appeared a bit out of control and looked like he was preparing to dive for the endzone. He should have been more concerned with protecting the ball at that point. Regardless, it's just another example of how the Bills of late have been incapable of making big plays at crucial points of the game. For all the bitching people have been doing about the Bills getting screwed by the refs, here was a perfect chance to turn the tables, and Fletcher blew it.

So who do we get to replace Moulds, another draft pick like Josh Reed? Have things gotten so bad that we're really thinking about dumping the only guy who has scored a TD for the team this year?

Gotta give credit to Moulds though, as he scored all three. The rest of the offense is really rising to the occasion. Nice work guys!

They challenged McGee's interception (overturn) and Mould's TD (play stood). They had none left. Fletcher hangs onto the ball, Buffalo is inside NE's 10.

The play was called back after Buffalo challenged it. The call on the field was a fumble. NE couldn't challenge it. If Fletcher runs out of bounds instead of fumbling through the endzone, it's the Bills' ball inside the ten.

Fletcher recovers a fumble on the field, and returns it to NEs 5 before fumbling it through the end zone, which is a touchback for NE. But Buffalo challenges the the catch before the fumble, and it's ruled to be an incomplete pass, so NE punts. No big deal, right? Wrong. If Fletcher doesn't fumble the Bills get the ball inside the Pats 5, because Belichick had already used up NE's two challenges (McGee's interception and Mould's TD). So, for NE, the play wasn't reviewable. That would have been a huge break for the Bills, giving them the ball in perfect position to tie the game. To me, this is a perfect example of how Buffalo lacks a winning mentality right now. For some reason, they lack the mental toughness to finish plays in the clutch. This is an area that Donohoe looked to improve by hiring Mularkey, but through 3 games, there's been no improvement at all.

I don't think this is anywhere near as bad as Cincy, where the main problem was ownership's refusal to spend the money to run a real NFL franchise (no scouting dept, no FAs, lousy facilities, etc). Donahoe has built a team that just doesn't hang together. The pieces don't fit. He's entrusted the team to inexperienced HCs, who have trouble putting their players into a position to make big plays. The effect is the same, but there is a difference between an unwillingness to do what's necessary to win, and an inability to do so.

He wasn't any worse than Shoebel. Of course, that's not saying much.

If JP is healthy, has a couple of weeks of practice, and the Bills are out of it, he starts. Put him on Jacksonville's 'Leftwich' plan from last year for the rest of the season. If, by some miracle, the Bills decrease their idiotic mistakes and manage to win more than they lose before Losman comes back, keep Bledsoe in there and fight for a playoff spot. Unfortunately for Drew, with 3 loses on the board, the time to cut bait is getting sooner and sooner.

Yeah, but you can also say that if Fletcher didn't fumble the ball through the end zone, the Bills would have had the ball inside the Pats 10. Belichick had already used up his two challenges, so the Pats couldn't review the bad call. It would have been one of the biggest breaks Buffalo has received since last year's opener, but Fletcher fumbled the freakin' ball. The point is, you make your breaks, you don't wait for them to be given to you.

Yeah and our jackass candidates are trying to treat it like a sanitized campaign rally. (I think I've gone full circle here!)

My point is, and I think you affirm it, is that nobody has a full grip on all their candidates position. Most people will pick two or three issues that are close to them and decide on those. BOTH candidates are convulted and self-contradictory on many positions. (Yes Republicans, Bush does flip-flop, like all politicians do). In the 2000 debates, Bush claimed to be against nation building. How has that played out? I doubt, though, that Bush's flip-flop will prevent any Republicans from voting for him. Bush and Cheney don't seem to agree on the gay marriage amendment. Will that cost them votes? Anyway, like you, I believe that the debates could be important, but in reality, they'll probably be worthless. And I avoid the PPP board, because I've found that intelligent debate is difficult with that audience.

Yeah, that and the fact that Mathews isn't that good (that's why he was a FA until the week before the season started). And before you ask if Mathews could have done any worse than Bledsoe, yes he could have thown 6 or 7 interceptions.

Hey man, I know what you're trying to do, but isn't the DOMA a bit arcane. I mean is there anyone out there basing their vote on it? Is somebody saying, "I really don't like the way Bush led us into way in Iraq, but he's really keepin' the queers in their place, so I'll vote for him." Or, "I really like the way Kerry wants to deal with outsourcing, but man, he's going to let fags get married." (I know that's not his actual position, it's hyperbole.) Nobody knows a candidate's position on every issue, nor should they have to. Voters tend to focus on a few key issues and make their decisions from there, because platforms rarely hang together (Pro NAFTA=aniti gay marriage?). Hell, Bush himself couldn't even name important world leaders before the 2000 election, but that didn't stop Republicans from voting for him. The debates should be a source of knowledge, but unfortunately, they've been watered down so much, they've become pretty worthless. Too bad the political parties don't view the electorate as being able to handle a constructive conversation between the two candidates. Instead they package every answer and control every question until the process becomes meaningless. We're not going to learn the candidates true positions on the war, or economy, or DOMA in these debates. Why? Because the parties view the voters as backwoods morons, unable to handle anything more intelligible than a 30 second sound bite.

Since when did the "Defense of Marriage Act" become part of foreign policy (the topic of tonight's debate)? Maybe Bush put Rumsfield in charge of it because it had "Defense" in it's title.

Oh, I get it, responsibility. Like owning up to the fact that you turned foreign policy over over to neocon chickenhawks? If that happens in the debates, I'm watching them for sure! (Actually, I'm watching them anyway, even though I don't expect them to be any more meaningful than a campaign rally -- without the required loyalty oath.)

It's the same as Dick Cheney's position. And if people can't tell who my candidate is from that statement, maybe they do need to watch the debates.

Are you saying that you haven't made up your mind?

McKinnie's numbers as a LT his first two years still suck. If the Bills drafted him, Jennings would still be the LT, not McKinnie. Like Williams, he would be playing the right side. So if you want to make the distinction of RT vs. LT, then the comparison should be Jennings vs. McKinnie. And McKinnie loses that battle.

With American soldiers dying overseas, the least these two jackasses could do is agree to hold an actual conversation about foreign policy. As a voter, I'd love to see a British-parliment style debate, with an objective, but tough-minded moderator who's in a foul mood. I know. It'll never happen in this day and age of pre-packaged politics.

Look, you may be right, but I want it proven on the field that the Bills will be that bad. I don't know where this team is headed right now, but I sure as hell don't expect them throw in the towel after 2 or 3 games. This team can definitely get better around Bledsoe. McGahee and Evans can be given bigger roles. The D can tighten up the 3rd and 4th and long defenses. The DBs can generate more turnovers. The offensive line could still develop into a solid run blocking unit. Adding an inexperienced rookie QB into the mix jeopardizes that development. If after 9, 10. or 11 games the team is going nowhere, put Losman in and get him his reps. But don't expect him to be able to turn things around this season. At this point of his career, that's expecting way too much.

McKinnie gave up 11 sacks last year, Williams 9. Who outplayed who last year? Jennings, a 3rd round pick gave up 2 or 3. If you compare Pace's first two seasons with Williams, Williams gave up 2 more sacks than Pace. If McKinnie was drafted by the Bills, he would have been a RT too, especially since he decided to hold out half of his first year. Jennings would have had the LT spot nailed down, and McKinnie's play would have kept him at RT. The problems with the OL has been inexperience, changing positions, offensive scheme and gameplan, and the loss of Larry Centers, who was able to get Bledsoe out of a jam. Then again, I don't have the apparent mind reading skills of Peter King.