mjd1001

They looked bad. The Chiefs looked bad against the Colts. There are games where you just don't 'have it'. There are also teams that look lost at one point of the season and turn things around in a different part of the season. The season is not lost at all, this team still has the ability to win any game against any time. For years that is all we wanted as fans, right? It does give another example of what has been said by a few people about this year. High expectations are a curse for a fanbase. When you think every game should be won by double digits, anything less than that, and certainly ANY loss, hurts really really bad.

Yes, if a move is not going to make you better, don't make a move just to make one. If you get OBJ, where he is going to take targets from? Gabe? With the ability he has and the chemistry he has with Josh, I don't know how many targets I want taken away from him. If it is just for 'depth', I'm not sure OBJ wants to come here to split time and targets. Can you get an OL that will be MUCH better than what you have? If so go for it, but honestly, the 'addition' to this team to keep up with everyone else is going to be Tre White.

I get your point, but honestly it is like that for just about all fan bases. I have on occasion visited other teams forums, and you get the same kind of stuff there. Try to take a look at this forum from an outsiders perspective. If you were a fan of an opposing team and came here recently, you might think many of the people posting here are arrogant, overbearing or worse. I think every fanbase in pro sports in this country has a small percentage of fans/message board posters who are 100% sure of themselves but act in an arrogant, egotistical, even confrontational manner. It happens with the Chiefs forum just like it happens here. We just don't recognize it as much here because often times we 'like' what we are hearing. I will say this, when I dislike a team, it is more often because of the fanbase than because of any player on it. Sure, I dislike the Browns now because of Watson and what they team did to get him. I dislike the Bucs and the Pats because I personally view Brady as an entitled, cheating whiner (much the same way I felt about Marino decades ago). But show me a fan base that acts like idiots...that is so full of themselves that it shows more than I see from other fanbases, and I'll show you a team I don't like. (of course, a lot of that is what we SEE for ourselves that matters)

How early can they flex games? I'm thinking the Jets in a couple of weeks. The Jets play the Broncos and Pats, they very well could be 6-2, or at least 5-3 coming into that Bills game. If the Bills happend to be 6-1 and the Jets 6-2, I would think Josh Allen on one side and the NY city market on the other would be a game the NFL would want out of the 1pm slot.

If you are going to say teams below .500, I'll go with the Cards or the Jags. Jacksonville has looked really good or bad this year, but they are improving. Cardinals, they should better than they have been so far. I'm not saying I think either will make the playoffs, but those would be my 2 picks.

Their schedule does look very, very easy. No games on it that they probably won't be favored in. Dallas and Green Bay are the only 2 teams right now that look in the same category as them, maybe the Giants? Still not that confident in them yet. However, whatever they finish....17-0, 16-1, all the way down to something like 13-4...if they have a record that good, they might be the 'worst' team in recent history with that record.

No, I'm not saying that. I am saying that, in my opinion, both sides are more extreme than they have been in most of my previous adult life. Has one side gone to the extreme more than the other? maybe, probabaly. But that still doesn't change my opinion that the lack of moderates on both sides are part of the reason we cannot have needed compromise bills/laws.....some that might take the pressure of the rest of the economy and the fed to keep raising rates.

Elizabeth Warren is not a moderate, and she gets a lot of air time. AOC is not a moderate. Biden was/is a moderate, but he has been behind more 'leftist' policies as president than he was in congress becuase the extremes of his party are demanding it. Agree or not with those specific points, the Dems are overall more left than they have been, and the Republicans are more to the right. At this point and time where the inflation issue can be address/partially solved by congress, this is a problem. Congress working togther on Wages/Food/Shelter CAN help inflation more than the fed at this point. Plus the things they can do might actually HELP the overall economy, not hurt it like constant rate hikes. But again, we are too worried about giving 'the other side' a 'win' so we agree to no comprimise. And by the way, dont' come back and me and say that 'your side' is moderate and the 'other side' is out of control extreme. Almost EVERYONE thinks 'their side' is less extreme than the other side. We need to take a step back and look at the big picture and allow/encourage our lawmakers to give away something we don't want in exchange for something we do want, and stop keeping score to make sure 'our sides' definately wins more than the other side for sure.

As per my above post, I want more moderates. We all say little gets done in congres and little got done in the past, but over the past 5-10 years, even less has been done unless it is rammed through by one party. There never was a LOT of compromise on bills/laws, but there was some. That is just about all gone now, and that is what we need. Nothing is NOT better that SOMETHING even if it gives the 'other side' a victory.

My opinion is a large part of the issue we have is caused by the people who just hate the other side. If you think anyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot, you are part of the problem. If you are sure your side is 100% correct (or even 95% correct) you are part of the problem. Think about this, if you LIKE hearing pundits, commentators, news networks make fun of the 'other side' from yours, you are part of the problem. People are sensative to things they like, so try to to think about people attacking 'your side', how about making sure you aren't taking joy in 'revenge' against that that making you feel better. I look at the inflation numbers that just came out today, and I can't help but think an issue is the extremes of both parties. A lot of us so badly want to 'own' the other side, that we have turned away from moderates in our own parties (they are too much like the 'other side') and have elected more people on the extremes. Trump and Marjorie Taylor Green on one side. AOC and Elizabeth Warren on the other side. They are extremes of their own parties. They don't want to work with the other side. Sure, maybe there are rare occastions where the country really needs to be 'shooken up' and those people need roles to do just that, but that is the exception, not the rule. So back to inflation. The worst parts of the inflation report (and inflation issue) are 3 things. Food. Shelter. Wages. At this point further rate hikes may not help those things that much, and will for sure inflict colateral damage on the rest of the economy. The fed has done their job, they can uses soe help from lawmakers now. If we had more 'moderate's in congress on both sides..sure, a lot of us won't like that. Warren doesn't like moderate Dems who don't agree with her and Trump surely hates moderate republicans won' won't back him. But guess what, they work together better. Immigration reform HELPS with wage inflation (lets drastically increase LEGAL immigration and that helps, won't solve but HELPS too rapid wage inflation). Housing. We give money away and have subsidies and tax breaks all over for home builders, lets re-focus those to have builders build more sensible, affordable housing. There are tons of tax breaks for builders to build high end, luxury housing..lets not add to them but take the money there are refocus it. Food inflation. don't even get me started at how much money is spent/tax breaks given to factory (and even family) farms to that MIGHT have been appropriate decades ago but hasn't been changed. Again, refocus that money on the supply chain for food, on producing/growing a more efficient manner. Congress can solve the biggest issues with inflation. But they have to work together and BOTH sides have to take 'victories' and 'losses' in the same bill/law. But with the parties being more polarized, and us, as voters, turning our backs on moderates who will work together because we just cannot STAND the thought of a moderate working with the other side, we are part of the issues we face.

No thanks.

Its a message board so we can post whatever we want (and of course should be allowed to), but its idiotic posts like this where someone just wants to push their own agenda and uses causality that has no ties to reality that make me shake my head sometime.

This reminds me a a conversation last year that was had trying to explain to the girfiend of a Coworker what is or isn't a catch. At one point it was brough up that for many, many years, the rule was simply, catch the ball (no bobbling) and having 2 feet down. You do that and it was a catch. Now the rule is abount control, what is a 'football move' and she just looked at the guy trying to explain it to her and said something like "the 2 foot thing was simpler, why did they complicate it"

I was a little kid and barely remember going to an autograph signing at a Hills dept store in Cheektowaga and saw Frank Lewis there. The few minutes I was in line I remember he didn't just sign autographs but talked to people and smiled and joked around. Again, I was very young but I do remember he seemed really nice. On the Jim Kelly comments, I never had a chance to meet him 'up close' but I have heard stories that he was kinda 'a jerk', one stands out coming from my cousin who is a huge Bills fan and actually has run into him a few times. Again, this was years ago and didn't happen to me directly, but it seems to be similar to the negative stories about Kelly in his playing days.

There have been very few times where I sat down to watch an NFL game anc just stopped watching it because I was so bored. Last night was one of those nights. some will say that when a game is close, at least that adds something to it. I think last nights game might have been the most boring regular season game I have ever started (but not finished) watching. I have faint memories of some Bills-Jets or Bills-Browns games that may rival it, but last night was just bad.

Calling him Moth as his last name...isn't that just so cute!! i can't stop laughing at your cleverness. As for as your take on this....I really, REALLY say the message board exits for all of us to post and all of us to say what we want, any opinion is welcome because it should be an open forum. However these are the type of posts that make me think again about that position.

I don't know how to feel about the Jets or this game. I tend to want to see the Jets win. I like the makup of the Jets. I like their coach (so far). They haven't won in a long time. But the other side of it is....as an emotional sports fan, I have a hard time rooting for ANY team to win when it will make those insufferable New York City fans happy.

While positions still matter, and Safetys certainly have different roles than CBs, those lines are a lot more blurred now than they used to be years ago. Depending on your D-scheme, you may have a Safety playing a lot more man to man or taking on responsibilities traditional to a CB than in the past. On the other hand, a CB may line up closer to the center of the field (in a traditional Safety position) based on the formation the offense is using. I'm not saying traditional roles and labels are going away this year or next, but whether a player is defined as a CB or Safety may not matter much....you put players in your Defense based on what their skills are. If White actually did 'slow down' after his injury, no need to 'officialy' change his position, just line him up and give him responsibilities based on his skills and the skills of those around him. Labeling him a particular position really means less. Its a lot like how a lot of Defensive Ends/Linebackers play in a way where their position is a label only. You have traditional Ends and traditiona LBs. You have LB's that rush almost every down like an end used to. You have Ends who drop in coverage or who's goal is to set the corner more like a LB would be. Good coaches and teams don't label players with a position and make them fit into a traditional role...they play them on each play where they need them to be based on that players talents and the scheme.

I thought I saw a study of college and pro QBs that show they get injured just as much in the pocket as they do out of the pocket. I'd like to see Josh slide more and avoid contact, but other than that, I'd ALMOST rather see him run where he can see what is in front of him as opposed to him staying in the pocket and taking more blind-side hits.

Does the Mark Kelso style padding on the outside of the helmet make a difference at all? It looked silly, but if it had any impact on reducing head injuries, I may want me $40+ million dollar QB using it.

Pitt a below average team trending downward. Jets a below average team trending upward. Regarding the Jets, that metallic green color of their helmets looks great in the bright sun. The Jets are also a team I could get behind and like, but then I remember what their fans are like. EVERY team has bad/arrogant fans when they win a game, but Jets fans can be some of the worst.

I would much rather listen to a show with zero callers, fill the show up with guests. I don't agree with all of the guests, but there is hardly ever a time I like to listen to any 'caller'.

Of course I enjoyed the 90's teams, I went to many games back then in person. However, I've moved on from those teams. I actually moved on a while ago, nothing against them or nostalgia in general, but gernally when I see something or am part of somethign I like...I enjoy it, look back on it for a year or two..and then shortly after I relegate it to the history books. If this team has a multi-year playoff run or goes to (or wins) a superbowl, that will be great also. A SB win would put this team above the 90's team for me for sure. But just like the 90's teams, a year or two later I'd be ready to move on and look at the team in front of me. I know everyone is different, but I guess I'm just not one to watch old games, or watch documentaries about teams from the past, and to really have a big connection to players from the past. For me its what is right in front of me.

A loss tomorrow puts me in the same place as I was after week 1 last year. This team at 2-2 would have me feeling the same as when they were 0-1 last year. Optimistic long term but knowing it would be tougher season than some people liked to think it would be.

I'd say Parcells. Like you said it is hard to judge, but Parcells didn't have a super QB. He did have a great, MVP level D-player though. Shula would be up there. Andy Reid. I don't know,I try to look at who was really good without a domiant QB.