oldmanfan

I wish Sammy was still here. But Dareus? No thanks.

Fingers crossed

You're not implying any of them were pivotal to their teams being the championship game are you?

Hope these allegations are false. But as long as O'Brien is calling the shots in Houston they won't be a factor. He thinks he's Belichick and he's far from it.

I'm not. I wouldn't be mad if Dareus had it either. They need a space eater in the middle of the D line. Dareus was a slacker though. Star does his job as unglamorous as it is.

If Beane or McD says it's white our friend here says it's black. Dareus was a slacker and is not better than Star. He would be if he wanted to actually use his talent. And I wish Sammyvwas still here, although injuries have prevented him from doing that well.

And if they hadn't you'd complain that they didn't.

a contender that feels it would put them over the top this year.

If the rookie shows big a trade for Shady would not be surprising.

And how could I forget the 85 Bears. If this years D remotely resembles any of these we should all jump for joy

Possible. But if he does struggle at MLB they could move him outside.

Historical is not a term that should be used lightly. The Steelers D of the 70's and Ravens around the turn of the century were historic. Our D this year - I would take solid to very good.

I agree Edmunds will be a guy to watch. But one of the best MLBs ever was Jack Lambert and he weighed about 210. Edmunds needs the experience where he just reacts to the play instead of taking that split second or so to think about the correct read.

I was there. We went berserk.

Allen is the key. I don't think anyone on this board would say different. I like what the regime is doing in terms of setting the culture they want, clearing cap space, etc. But like any pro team their plan has to produce tangible results. To me that is a winning record this year and hopefully playoffs and playoffs next year. Terry and Kim?? Not sure. Now as I said above they could go 10-6 the next two years and just miss the playoffs and I think everyone including Terry would be fine. But if they go say 5-11 for two seasons they'd probably be gone. Bottom line: if the plan they want to implement works they're heros, and if it doesn't they're fired. As they should be either way. Rather than assuming they won't succeed though, I'll just watch and see what happens.

And there you go again. Since you like capitals after 17 years THEY MADE THE PLAYOFFS. They put themselves into position and they got in. But you insist on making that negative. So I'll ask again: why? Why do you refuse to answer?

Okay Donald. Guess what? Every single person on this board knows that Beane and McD have to be successful. You know, like when they made the playoffs the first year which you like to ignore. But do you know what the difference is between you and them? They want to see what happens and they hope it turns out well. You, on the other hand, imply that they won't succeed. And the question I posed to you, that you apparently can't it won't answer, is why? Why assume that? I truly and sincerely would like someone who takes the negative slant consistently to explain the rationale for that. I hope I didn't tick you off Shaw. I think you nailed it here.

You asked a question, people gave you data that refuted your claim, then you just change the parameters on a whim. Above, all of a sudden it's 5 years, now it's 3-4. Nice try Donald.

So you made up a convoluted question that was negated, and you response is to now just make up another question instead of acknowledging the first was negated? Okay. Now instead of 3 years it's 5 years? My answer is it depends: if they are 10-6 the next two years and just get nosed out in a tiebreaker for the playoffs then they should stay. Now answer my question: why do you make up questions and scenarios and change them around to try and figure out a way to have the Bills be bad and cause the HC and GM to be fired?

So you set up a cockamamie question where you place artificial limits on what a correct answer can be, despite that people give you answers that negate your premise, then you ignore those answers or claim they don't answer you question. And people get upset with me when I point out the fact that there are folks here (of whom you are one of the leading examples) who come here just to spin everything in a negative direction for whatever bizarre reason.

You nailed it. In my history of attending many Bills and Sabres games the vast majority of fans might initially cheer a big hit that might have caused the injury, but if they see a guy from the opposition go down the mood changes quickly. People are quiet and then cheer in support of the injured player when he's taken off the field.

If Butler had not gotten hurt he would have been HOF caliber.

Good point

I see your point. Not my intent however. I sincerely would love to know why some folks who post nothing but negatives about the team do so. And why they then get so upset if challenged. I presume all on this board are here because we are fans of the Bills, and enjoy discussing things with the team. What enjoyment can one get from coming on and spinning everything into a negative? Not trying to be snarky, I just don't get it.

I agree. This was what I understood in the pre-Beane era. And likely driven by Littman, who I believe may have had more to do with the Bills dysfunction for so many years than many of us grasp. I can't imagine Beane being told by Overdorf who he can and cannot sign. or how he is going to spend his salary dollars. I think it was all driven by Littman, to protect his percentage ownership. But we'll likely never know everything that went on behind the scenes.