The Red King

Yes, but remember, he hates our hotels! ?

Um...look at our board. Look at this thread. As a group, overall, we're no classier and have said things equally bad.

Hell yeah. I was there too and I remember thinking it could not possibly get any louder...then another big play hits and it somehow did. Time and time again, it kept somehow escalating. My voice was gone the next day. Completely.

The window of opportunity is most definately there, but the Bills haven't locked anything up yet. They gotta keep winning games.

Remember kids, this kind of thinking is why the Patriots had that perfect season a few years ago. That impressive Super Bowl win over the Giants...oh...wait... ?

Hm, I looked through that thread and really it's not bad. Few Pats fans even saying not to underestimate us. Sorry, I see nothing there to get upset over.

Anyone remember another lil 'ol week four match up between the 3-0 Bills and 3-0 Pats in Buffalo? Seem to remember hearing Buffalo didn't have a chance in that one either. ?

"Booger, what should the Jets do now?" "I say they blow up their f'ing houses."

If nothing else, I think the Jets look good...literally. I'm a fan of the black jersey with green trim.

Hell, even then they'll stick to their gun. Case in point, Tyrod.

...consider the source, I don't think he can. He lives to be pessimistic. The Bills could roll the Pats, and he'd still tell you five things he hated about the game.

I thought I remembered reading the Browns were the best team in the AFC... ?

Before overly mocking the OP, I'll at least point out someone thought this idea interesting enough years back. Forget the name and the station, but they made a league from classic championship teams, and simulated the games on computer. They then made highlight "clips" by splicing old footage together. Granted, the show bombed and quickly died, but enough people believed it could work to actually have greenlit it.

It's this, exactly. The entire goal line is considered part of the endzone. It's why you just have to break the plane for a TD, but escape it completely to avoid a safety.

You missed the point. The Jets and Giants share a single stadium.

I had been attacked repeatedly for saying the Browns were over-hyped, that they looked good on paper but I wanted to see it on the field before I annoint them anything. Sure looked like the best team in the AFC today, didn't they? ?

See, I liked the tri-color. It was the road jerseys I hated. Red helmet, white jersey and pants looked horribly wrong. They looked like lighthouses, would have been better with blue pants. As for now, I love our current unis, better then any past set...except when we go white helmet, white shirt, blue pants. Still a jarring case of "one of these things is not like the other." ...color rush is an abomination and an eyesore.

Hey you...the superstar playing on the Raiders. How would you like to play for the Patriots? You know, the team that keeps winning rings? I can make that happen. All it will cost you is $20 million, and your dignity. Zero to hero, a championship for your legacy. Seems a reasonable cost, no?

Do you remember when this thread was about Antonio Brown? Pepperidge Farms remembers...

AB acts like a douche so he gets traded. Doesn't go to the team he wants, so he acts like a douche and gets released. The Pats, in less then a day, decide this locker room cancer is actually the perfect fit for their team and sign him. Yeah, sounds legit. ?

I never once used the word 'crime' in this post. So...thanks for showing your bias, and lack of basic reading skills.

Who said anything about a crime? Now I don't think you're even readng my replies.

Replied to you above while you were replying.

See, you're still not getting it. I'm not saying whether or not there was collusion, only that claiming the report said 'no collusion' is inaccurate. If the police say they do not have enough evidence to accuse 'suspect x' of a crime, does that suspect say 'See? The police said I didn't do it! They cleared me!". Of course not. Yet that's the leap you're trying to make. For the record, I think there was signifigant Russian interference in the election. I don't, however, think there was collusion. So no, I am not biased here. But again, to anyone that says outright the report says "No collusion", I say show me where. You're certainly allowed to come to any conclusion you want, but that is something you say, not the report. "Did not establish" is not the same as conclusively saying it did not happen.

You can say 'The report did not find enough evidence to support collusion', and you would be accurate. But that is not the same thing as saying 'The report said no collusion.' The former suggests there is not enough evidence to support a conclusion. The latter suggests a definitive conclusion was reached, and it wasn't. Hell, the most accurate statement would be "The report did not find enough evidence to support collusion', which again isn't quite the same.