Tuco

Yes he let up, and that's why play continued and it's not in the grasp. Suh had him totally in control by the collar. If he didn't let up he would have been flagged for a horse collar tackle. Not our player's fault if the other team let's up to avoid getting a penalty.

Tyrod's effort was encouraging and good to see, even though it was too little too late. Now if Tyrod had added the same 20 point debacle as EJ did in the 1st quarter I would say, just as I did with EJ, that he played a crappy game. And what does EJ's performance against the Jags have to do with 4th quarter heroics? From halfway through the 2nd quarter to halfway through the 4th quarter he led the team to 2 TDs and 2 FGs. That's pretty decent for a half a game against what most people call the worst team in the league. However his performance in the first 1 1/2 quarters was beyond horrible, and his performance at the end of the 4th quarter was pretty lacking also. A single touchdown drive in the 4th quarter to get within 3 is hardly 4th quarter heroics. Fourth quarter heroics would be getting the ball back down by 3 (check) with 2:16 left (check) and three time outs (check) and actually tying or winning the game instead of crapping out with a helium balloon of a pass. EJ played an overall horrible game which he almost managed to salvage but came up short. There were no 4th quarter heroics by EJ, My assessment of EJ's overall play for the day was that the abysmal early follies and lacking late performance far outweighs any halfway decent play he may have shown in between. And I don't see how anybody pointing out that Shady fumbled or that the defense gave up a TD right after scoring a TD will change that. Sure, those things happened too. None of it means EJ showed any heroics or that he didn't play a crappy game. But that's just me I guess.

Right you are.

I wasn't crapping on him as THE reason. There were lots of reasons, the BIGGEST by far was the incredibly crappy play by EJ. And whenever somebody tries to minimize that by talking about how he came back it seems they need to be reminded that after giving the other team 20 points, there was no point in the game where EJ ever did enough to walk off the field with the lead. So talking about a comeback doesn't really seem like much of a reason not to crap on EJ's crappy play. Crap is crap. Was EJ THE reason? No. There was a fumble by Shady. That's bad but nowhere near as bad as Ej's plays. There was bad officiating, but nowhere near as bad as EJ's play. Let's crap on the defense, they gave up 2 touchdown drives and a 3rd touchdown with a drive start on the 36 (thanks to EJ). They also forced seven 3 and outs, one of which gained 7 points to help offset some of EJ's crappy plays. Lots of reasons. None of which are anywhere near as bad as Ej's giving the ball away 3 times in 7 plays. The dude sucked bad and anybody trying to say he didn't by pointing out Blake Bortles was the difference is just pointing out that when EJ did have a final chance to make it all right, he continued to play crappy. I don't need to crap on EJ, he did that to himself. Almost coming back doesn't change that.

And another way of looking at it was, at the end of the game, down by 3 with 2:00+ and 3 time outs left, E.J. was not the difference. Yeah we came back and had the lead - thanks to the defense. At no time after the 3-0 lead (should have been 7) in the first quarter did E.J. ever walk off the field with the lead.

What? The Bills have only ever played once on Sunday night? Or are you just talking about since NBC started broadcasting it?

Hard to say. The rule just says it's 15 yards for unsportsmanlike if the player is "running forward and leaping in an obvious attempt to block a field goal or try kick and landing on players, unless the leaping player was originally lined up within 1 yard of the line of scrimmage when the ball was snapped."

The lining up directly over the center only applies to anyone within 1 yard of the line of scrimmage. If he was within 1 yard of the line of scrimmage before the snap he should have been flagged. I'm assuming they saw something that the team did just before the snap that would give away the timing. Also, a player jumping over the line to block a kick, if he wasn't within 1 yard of the line of scrimmage at the snap, will get a 15 yard penalty if he lands on any player from either team when he comes down. So the whole thing can be risky.

I'll guess Frank Gifford is one.

From NFL.com Play By Play- Tennessee Titans at 15:00 8-B.Cundiff kicks 69 yards from BUF 35 to TEN -4. 20-B.Sankey MUFFS catch, touched at TEN -4, RECOVERED by BUF-88-M.Goodwin at TEN 2. PENALTY on BUF-81-M.Easley, Offside on Free Kick, 5 yards, enforced at BUF 35 - No Play.

Does anybody else have R-berger, Dez Bryant and Andre Ellington on their fantasy team? FML

The only appeal left would be the United States Supreme Court, which gets around 10,000 case applications per year but only agrees to hear around 75. It's almost certain this will be the final stage.

You always have the choice of where to snap the extra point from, as long as it's between the hash marks. Even if you're going for 2.

Patriots* owner Robert Kraft has no relation to Kraft Foods.

Can't say I've ever seen it called that way before but here is how it appears from the 2013 rule book. So it's not something brand new or made up. -- All other Chop Blocks are illegal, including in the following situations: Forward pass plays and kicking plays: (a) A1 chops a defensive player while the defensive player is physically engaged above the waist by the blocking attempt of A2. (b) A2 physically engages a defensive player above the waist with a blocking attempt, and A1 chops the defensive player after the contact by A2 has been broken and while A2 is still confronting the defensive player. (c) A1 chops a defensive player while A2 confronts the defensive player in a pass-blocking posture but is not physically engaged with the defensive player (a ―lure‖). (d) A1 blocks a defensive player in the area of the thigh or lower, and A2, simultaneously or immediately after the block by A1, engages the defensive player high (―reverse chop‖).

This investigation is an outrage. Nobody has done anything wrong and the league owes us an apology. Pay no attention to those two stadium employees we fired.

Especially the ones they don't even know.

I agree they blew it bad with Pash. I am somewhat bothered by the fact the league loses every time they go to court. In this case I think it's clear to everyone once the investigation started everybody involved realized this has been an ongoing issue. But the judge seemed to constantly refer to only the one game. I guess the NFL didn't actually specify they were probably punishing for more than that, and apparently they should have, except they really didn't have anything to go on other than common sense and conclusions drawn from lies, evidence tampering and refusals for follow up interviews by any of the involved parties. If the league is required to make their case without the benefit of the power of subpoena, and the perpetrator is allowed to stonewall at every turn, the league would never be able to punish anybody without visual and audio evidence in triplicate. So every time a CBA comes around the league fights tooth and nail to keep the power of discipline under the commissioner's domain and it's supposed to be wide ranging - all encompassing even. We have no way of knowing what the league gives up to keep that disciplinary authority. It could be 1% of total revenues for all we know (about $10 mil extra in salaries per team), maybe more. The point is a wide range of disciplinary authority is supposed to belong to the commissioner but it seems it doesn't. So we have a judge who's not supposed to be ruling on guilt or innocence (and technically didn't) making a courtroom point of asking about direct evidence to find guilt, and consistently referring to just the single game when it's obvious there was more there. This could have been done behind closed doors but was done in open court. So, it seems, the league is held to the standard of bearing the burden of proof while at the same time not being afforded the means to elicit such proof. Then the judge smacks the league down for not not cooperating and obfuscating during the appeal, which is the same thing the league was met with during their investigation only on a wider scale. Cooperation is also a part of the CBA, but in the end the league got smacked down for stonewalling but not the player. By not being able to secure evidence and witnesses the league is forced to draw conclusions from speculation and common sense. They're supposed to have the authority to do that through a negotiated agreement. Yet the judges always seem to minimize that. It's an important part of the CBA but it always seems to get pushed aside. The judges never outright cite any law that says they can't maintain that authority through negotiation, but there always seems to be singular issues which they decide don't fall under the disciplinary umbrella that's supposed to exist. Now, it seems, after 6 tries, the courts have effectively stripped that wide range of authority while the union is left still holding onto whatever they gained by giving it. That part doesn't sit well with me and I don't understand why judges don't allow the commissioner a wider range when it's clearly what they bargained for at arms length negotiations. Yes, please start the season.

Look, I was simply responding to a poster who was claiming the NFL has no rights to suspend a player, that only the player's team can do that. The poster's post said exactly the following- "If a individual violates the NFL Integrity rule that is on the team first, the NFL has no rights to discpline a individual for this" I was just pointing out by pasting paragraph 15 that the poster was incorrect in that statement. This was, actually, after I read the judge's decision where he even mentions the paragraph and gives his reasons why it doesn't apply here. I have my reasons to want to disagree with the judge but I certainly wasn't arguing for it at that point when I posted it. I was responding to "the NFL has no rights to discipline an individual for this." Clearly in this case the judge has decided they don't. But it is still there, stated as a right in every NFL player contract. All I wanted to do was point that out to that poster because I feel his claim that the right doesn't exist was in error.

There is. And it was argued very successfully by the NFLPA. My response was to a poster who was stating forthright that the league could not, and did not have the authority to suspend a player for conduct detrimental, and that only the player's team could do that.

Paragraph 15 of the NFL Player Contract says they do. 15. INTEGRITY OF GAME. Player recognizes the detriment to the League and professional football that would result from impairment of public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of NFL games or the integrity and good character of NFL players. Player therefore acknowledges his awareness that if he accepts a bribe or agrees to throw or fix an NFL game; fails to promptly report a bribe offer or an attempt to throw or fix an NFL game; bets on an NFL game; knowingly associates with gamblers or gambling activity; uses or provides other players with stimulants or other drugs for the purpose of attempting to enhance on-field performance; or is guilty of any other form of conduct reasonably judged by the League Commissioner to be detrimental to the League or professional football, the Commissioner will have the right, but only after giving Player the opportunity for a hearing at which he may be represented by counsel of his choice, to fine Player in a reasonable amount; to suspend Player for a period certain or indefinitely; and/or to terminate this contract.

I agree except I don't mind the investigation. Even the Patsys* claimed to be all for it in the beginning. But then the league discovered evidence that the practice had been going on much longer than one game they were bound to investigate that thoroughly. And that's when the stonewalling and noncooperation really began, leaving the league with no choice but to believe their suspicions were well founded - at which point they had to see it through regardless of the slimness of evidence. But the union did give (negotiated) the league that power and I don't think the judge gave that enough weight. The judge, of course, is probably not too concerned with what I think.

But if you're not allowed to subpoena records or witnesses because it's not a criminal case, that leaves the guilty party free to stonewall and destroy evidence. It wasn't just the phone the league was also denied any questioning of Needle Dee and Needle Dum under oath. So you give the commissioner the power to oversee as he sees fit instead, but then when you don't like his actions you get a judge hold the same commissioner to the standard of a criminal court, even though he was denied criminal court resources? And also tell the commissioner that stonewalling and destroying evidence isn't punishable either? I've read the judge's decision and can mostly understand his reasoning. But the commissioner was given that power during arm's length negotiation and it just seems wrong for the judge to take it away. Who can say what the league gave up in negotiations in order to keep the commissioner's authority as is? I don't see how the judge can dismiss that. As another poster pointed out, there is legal precedent that you can't gain something in arbitration that you didn't gain in collective bargaining.

I'd be surprised. The appellate court will not be so accommodating as to issue a ruling based on any deadlines. More likely Brady will be retired and remarried by the time it gets resolved now.

I agree. I know we get involved and some people get quite emotional about our Bills. And I know in my case I use words like hate and kill when talking about other teams and players. But that's just speaking relative to the subject. At the end of the day it's only football.