Dawgg

Guys please keep me in the loop as well. Thanks

For sure. The playcalling was excellent and one other thing to add: as this was the first game, I have a hard time believing Mularkey came out firing. It takes a few games for the offense to gel and get used to the terminology no matter how many times you go over it in practice. That said, by Game 3 or 4 I think we'll be seeing a much different (and better) offense.

Dude, be honest... did he really recognize you as a poster on THIS board???? That's nuts. I can't believe he takes the time to read this board.

Well it doesn't look like we'll be hearing it, so whatever

I'm out of the loop. When and how did ICE talk to TD?

Are you guys taking a bus down? If you have space, could we join you? We'll help you pay for it. If not, I can drive, no biggie.

OK cool. Are you guys wearing Bills jerseys to the game? I was going to, but just making sure it's safe!!!!!!!!!!!

Well... if you all have a group of 30-40, I'm tailgating with you guys!!! I only have a group of 4... let me know where you guys will be before the game. I will be on the lower level, 10th row baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Talk to me. Who's gonne be at the game. I'll be with a group of 4, screaming my head off for the Bills. Respond here if you'll be there with your tailgaiting plans (if any)

My thoughts exactly. Jonnie Unitas was one of the most productive QBs in history too. Let's bring him in for a tryout!

No credible refutation. Your prose is magnificent, I must say! Here's your credible refutation: YOU CANNOT MAKE THAT ARGUMENT! This is a team game, AKC and I have to say that you're stretching here a bit. One can make similar arguments about any great athlete in a team sports, aside from maybe Michael Jordan. If Elway didn't have Terrell Davis, he would have no Super Bowl Rings. So what??? If Jim Kelly didn't have Andre Reed, he would not have reached the Super Bowl 4 straight times. Your point being... If Kurt Warner didn't have Bruce and Holt, he'd still be stocking grocery shelves. Umm.. but he did. The point is, it does not matter. We judge athletes in a team sports based on what they had and how they made the most of it. If Brady didn't have a good kicker, how the hell do you know what would have happened? You don't have that luxury of hindsight to be able to play that scenario out!!!! It takes a great QB to even get "in" field goal range in such pressure situation. Look, though it may seem like it, I'm not here to bend over for Tom Brady. I'm just saying I know a good QB when I see one. Tom Brady is better than Bledsoe will ever be or ever was. Now I'm going to move on and keep rooting for Drew because I'm a Bills fan.

Haha that was hilarious. Welcome to the board Trevor. I do understand how AKC feels... I too have sour grapes towards Brady. Living in Boston, watching how the quarterback position should be played and watching how a true team leader makes those around him better also gave me sour grapes. However, I am willing to give credit where credit is due. The Pats don't win 14 in a row in the regular season and clich the top seed in the AFC with just a top-notch kicker. They did it in large part because of a QB who knows how to win games.

Yes, I also wanted to know where the mathematical derivation was for that 1/33rd figure.

Your point that quarterback play was not a direct cause of the Bills loss in Week 1 is well taken. However, to say that the Patriots absolutely would not have won a Super Bowl without the clutch kicker is a bit presumptuous on your part. I would flip the argument and say: If it weren't for the superb quarterback play that the Patriots enjoyed with Tom Brady under center, their kicker would not have had the opportunity to kick the aforementioned game winning kicks. After living in Boston for 3 years and watching Tom Brady and the Patriots numerous times, one thing has become apparent: they do what is necessary to win. If a field goal is what they need, they will put their kicker in a position to have a chance. Suppose they were down by 4 in the Super Bowl with 1:30 remaining in the fourth quarter. Who are you to say that Tom Brady wouldn't have engineered a drive culminated by a winning TD? Honestly, after watching how cool he is under pressure and how he delivers time and time again, I wouldn't put it past him. That said, with games so close in today's NFL a reliable kicker is a virtual necessity. Lindell is clearly not one of those.

Yes, so he screwed up that final play on 4th down, but don't lose sight of the fact this his INT led to the Bills ONLY touchdown yesterday afternoon. If Moulds hadn't fumbled and if Henry was able to hit the endzone from the 1, it wouldn't have had to come to that. I think Clements played a pretty solid game. If you want to cast blame, look elsewhere.

Wonderful insight.

I'm sick and tired of talking about the Jax game, it makes me sick to my stomach. There is no one scapegoat no matter how you slice and dice it. Clements error wouldn't have been a big deal had Moulds not fumbled or if the offense converted from the 3 yard line. The real question is: Can this team regroup and beat Oakland? How do you think we match up against them??? I'll be at the game. Holla

Vincent hits better than Winfield? Crack or Heroin?

Irrespective of hindsight, it's a general philosophical question. I am a firm believer you play to win. If Lindell doesn't make it, then find someone who does. But playing scared is just not the way to play in the NFL.

Agreed. In this particular example, that does not apply. Kicking a field goal which is well within Lindell's range (desppite his earlier miss) is a chance you have to take, irrespective of hindsight. I don't necessarily blame the game on this call since the Bills squandered 2 redzone chances, but in that case, I feel strongly that we should have made the kick. What would Parcells have done? What would Herm Edwards have done? I think both those guys would have gone for the kick. But that's just me perhaps...

Simon's right. The real question is this. Are you trying to win or to "not lose"? If you're trying to win, you kick. If you're trying to "not lose" you punt.

I was initially opposed to the signing when I heard it was between $28 and $32MM... however with recent figures pointing to the $23MM range, I think that's reasonable. I don't think Schobel is a great player, but he's pretty solid. I also think Pat Williams is a crucial signing for this team. He is a disruptive force, does a lot fo dirty work and is the type of player whose value you will only realize when he is no longer there. If Donahoe was truly preparing for his departure, he should have chosen Wilfork in the first round. The Pats used him to replace Big Ted. The Pats did just that, locked him up for 6 years at a cheap price, and he already played a major role in helping them win yesterday. You replace good players with players who have a chance to be just as good. Justin Bannan is not that type of player, nor is Ron Edwards. Tim Anderson looks solid, but the jury is still out. Pat Williams may be getting up there in age, but he has proven durable over the many years and there is no reason he can't contribute for another 3.

I said it before and I'll say it again. 5 years is an eternity in the NFL. This is a league and an industry in which talent is largely judged on recent history. Donahoe's recent history is not good. There comes a point where he can't rest on the laurels of what he did 10 years ago.

Wrong, Todd. You say psychology majors would call this "projection" I say statisticians would call this a "solid sample size" Jerry Sullivan has brought up Donahoe's record over the past 5 years. No half-truths No distortions No misleading statements here either. He is simply citing the last 5 years under Donahoe's regime and bring up a record of 30-50. That is fact. And fact is truth. Guess that makes me a "buttmunch" as you would say, but the numbers don't lie. 5 years is an eternity in today's NFL and in his 3 years thus far, Donahoe has not gotten the job done. If you really feel there are factual omissions in his article, more power to you. POINT THEM OUT. That's what this board is for. You're right, Donahoe is a pretty solid, well-respected personnel guy. But Sullivan, while a bit on the extreme, brings up some valid points. If you feel that some of those points are a bunch of baloney, why not point them out? Where are the half-truths (the record can't be one, nor can the coaching choices or many of his draft choices)

No they're not. And solid organizations spend high draft picks on them on a regular basis. Past Super Bowl caliber teams like New England, Tampa Bay, Carolina, and Baltimore know this quite well. You draft a solid defensive lineman in the first round and you lock him up for 5-6 years at a palatable rookie figure. That's why instead of drafting Lee Evans in a draft filled with WR talent, I feel we should have gone after Will Smith or Udeze. They are as good if not better than Schobel and can be had for much, much cheaper.