UConn James

I hear Ray Lucas is flush with cash since he signed a sponsorship deal with Kleenex.

IIRC, that was written into his one-year contract. Not that tagging him again is a realistic option, given the new CBA. Any player tagged two years in a row will receive a contract that is the avg of the top 10 salaries in the league. That's more than $10M, and is prohibitive for this team. I don't know why you're continuing down this path. Clements will NOT be talked down in his salary demands. Last I heard, he wants ~$8M/year with a $12-15M SB. Everything he and his agent have done and everything the Bills front office has done points to him being gone next year, with this year as a stopgap while the rookies get experience. He will be testing the waters, so you'd better get prepared to lose him on the first or second day of FA. Stop living in your dream world where Marv has any leverage and $6M will be enough.

The Bills will only be able to sign 10 players to our roster and we will only have 1 guy manning the snow cart! There's NO ONE AVAILABLE!! Haven't you heard?!!? DOOOOOOOMED!!!

Wrong, both teams have had lots of offensive performances in the last several years.

So, let's see. There's no one who can play CB. There's no OLmen. We have to keep playing JP in '07 b/c no one will be available. Wow. There will be NO UFAs, no surprise salary cap cuts, and no one is going to declare for the NFL Draft? OK, now we're screwed. Timmy the Ticket Boy is irreplaceable, too.

Seconded. MAN LAW!

Well, I'm going to put a bullet right to the heart of the issue. What makes your argument moot is: Does Nate want to be back here next year? Marv has said he will not use the FT on him again, meaning UFA. It is up to NC where he will go. If he wanted to stay in Buffalo, the time for him to make a deal was last offseason. Instead, he passed up on long-term security and risks getting $0 if he's injured this year. Guys forgo all this when they plan on testing the waters either b/c they know they're not going get as much as they want, or they want to be somewhere else. Other teams will pony up b/c they'll have plenty of cap room too. It's not the team's choice. Nate will be gone.

So then, what is the worth of signing NC and thereby not being able to afford a better surrounding cast so he can be worth what he's paid? B/c let's face it, there are a lot of holes on this team.

To me, it's an indication that the opposing team can only throw the ball to one player per play, and with McGee giving up the ghost more than anyone.... It is a coaching issue in that this CB placement scheme sucks. Anyone tell Fewell that we can bump WRs w/in 5 yards? But it's more than that. We've had the same 'CBs 10 yards off the LOS' problem for the past three coaches. They each say they're going to do different things, but it's the same sh--. At this point, I don't think Nate wants to be back, and I can't say I blame him. You shouldn't use a thoroughbred as a carthorse. But that also doesn't excuse his play this year. He wants to be paid like a Playmaker --- where are the plays?

I'm getting a little tired of the 'learn from his mistakes' excuses. These aren't so much mistakes of execution/inexperience as they are pure brain farts in the face of pressure. And I tell you, in my experience, people who regularly brain fart don't ever really stop brain farting.

Nope. The Caldwell 1st down was Clements' way. It was a short 3rd, Nate lined up way back, and even I knew where the ball was going. That's just one I do remember. Doesn't really matter, b/c Brady was busy picking McGee apart. But I just don't get how this proves much about Nate given what you say is a derth of data. You might as well try to prove that California won't have an earthquake over 8.0. I'm not saying the failure of the Defense is on Nate. Our D-line gets little more than the odd coverage sacks. The DEs are mostly matadored right out of the plays. Give any QB time and he'll complete passes. What I said in the game thread about 'heart' when he pulled up and started hopscotching when Dillion was at the 5 on the first TD.... You can call it what you want. The willpower to tackle anyone trying to score on your endzone, wanting to bust up whoever comes your way, whatever. Nate hasn't shown it in this, his contract year. He is going through the motions and trying not to get injured for wherever he ends up next year. (Which won't be in Buffalo, b/c if a long-term contract was going to happen, it would have.)

I don't know if it was just a bad day (or a bad month) for JP. But the more these things happen.... As much as I want him to succeed, JP seems to have that fart waft of failure around him as far as dealing with pressure, handling the game and handling the football. He's got 'til the end of the season to show something.

Wow. Nate makes his first Big Play of the year.

Anyone see the graphic that we have 22 penalties before the snap this season? Second most in the league.

Poor clock management there on JP. NE would give him that 10-yard cushion any day when it takes 20 seconds off the clock. A smart QB doesn't take it. Throw it away, save time, try again.

Sigh.

We need to score a TD here to have any realistic shot at winning.

That was a designed roll-out block, like we used to have the Counter-Tre. CV's job was to pick up the blitzer; he put in a weak block w/ his right shoulder.

Nope. Villareal.

OK, then. How about we call it Nate's pu$$y-meter. What a waste of good money.

On the TD, Schoebel whiffed in the backfield. Clements pulled up and started a 'Oh well!'-hopping when Dillon was at the 5. No heart.

CTM/BJ can continue to say this stems from "victimhood." But I don't think KT considers himself a "victim." He and Pat knew full well what it meant when they signed their names and that what happened cannot be changed. The point is the litany of things this admin has done in a piece-by-piece powergrab that threaten our civil rights. It's not unlike as the Declaration states: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, invariably pursuing the same object, evinces a design to reduce then under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." We all can make these statements from our living rooms about our Iraq theories --- 'If we do X, they'll do Y' like this is all some kind of science experiment --- and calling this one an idiot, that one an idiot, everyone but the guy in the mirror an idiot.... All of this talk doesn't mean Jack sh--. Many people who physically go to Iraq come back with a changed attitude of the purpose and outlook of this war. I prefer to listen to people who've actually experienced it to the crap-throwing monkeys who verbally masturbate into their keyboards as if they know what they're talking about b/c they read Jane's. This admin walked into Pottery Barn and broke the $600 serving platter. In a better world, the people who work in Pottery Barn would let us sweep it up and pay for the platter. What's happening, tho, is we're getting charged for everything in the store, and the employees are pelting us with salad bowls and stabbing us with forks and serviettes, while doing the same to each other. At what point do we say '!@#$ it!' and leave the building?

Why not? A guy cutting a guy's hair sounds better? Not that there's anything wrong with that....

Yeah, you were right, if what tgreg typed was accurate. I'm merely suggesting what might have been intended from a poor or non-speaker who is just piecing it together from a dictionary. If it's a hot girl in the balance, I'd want to know this if I were tgreg!

I'm in pretty much the same boat as /dev/null. Took 4 years in high school.... Couldn't speak it worth much, but was much better at the written word (then again, that's how I am in English, too). Haven't had much of an opportunity to use it much since. tgreg, it would mean a lot if you'd share who said this and what their level of French is, as well as if you're inaccurate in transcribing it. Lots of people who piece words together from F-E dictionaries so it literally translates but means gobbledegook in French. As you typed the sentence, it would be as said: 'I have seen all.' But with slight differences, it could be an unpolished speaker saying 'Je veux tu' meaning 'I want you' (It should be "Je te veux," for proper syntax, in that case). Uhh... In the first case for politeness, it would be "Je vous ai vu." In your second case, it would be "Je t'aime" for "I like you." The direct object goes before the verb in cases like that. And introducing the conditional "may" in that opens up a linguistic can of worms that anyone who knows French knows isn't there.