Typical TBD Guy

Interesting. What do you guys think of the validity of SA's statements? Me personally, I don't know what to think about Jerry Gray's defense. I know they've been affected by Vincent's and Milloy's injuries, but something about them stinks. I mean really stinks. Only 6 turnovers in 5 games, too many 3rd down conversions allowed, too many 4th quarter chokes...

Yes.

I love how all of a sudden I've become a Henry Apologist on this board. Was my original proposal so unreasonable? Play Henry for 1st and 2nd downs, play McGahee for 3rd and 4th and goal-line, and take Henry out if he fumbles once or misses a block that leads to a sack once? I, too, think WM is the better back. However, I think Henry is still a pretty good one as well (top 15 NFL RB), and if there is any way we can keep both on the same team (as injury insurance) - and even on the same field at the same time (putting WM at FB and TH at HB) - then I am all for that.

They already have. This is a message board for those suffering from bipolar disorder and Alzheimer's - oh, and who also happen to be Bills football fans.

Read my above post. Maybe WM = RJ?

Remember when we all got excited over Rob Johnson's single game against the Colts? I'm not saying Willis will have an RJ-like career, but I do want to stress the importance of not rushing to conclusions based on any single game. Let's continue to start Henry but extend McGahee's playing time and see what comes of it, OK?

Well, Moulds and Evans have been doing that, so should we bench them too?

I have no problem with Henry starting, provided Mularkey does the following: 1. plays McGahee for all third-down and goal-line situations. 2. replaces Henry if he fumbles at all. 3. replaces Henry if he misses a single blitz assignment that leads to a sack.

I've been one of Bledsoe's biggest critics over the past 4 weeks, but I will say this: I was very pleased with his performance yesterday. Given the tough Miami D, the adverse weather, and the numerous injuries to our O, I think 13 net offensive points were just fine. He did a much better job of sidestepping sacks and not forcing balls into coverage. Only 1 sack, 0 fumbles, and 0 interceptions isn't bad at all. However, I refuse to jump back on the Bledsoe bandwagon after 1 good game. I did that last year and got burned badly. This Sunday, let's see how our revitalized Drew performs in a road game - the type of venue where, in recent history, he's struggled the most.

If the coaches want to make a statement, why not just bench Adams for a whole game rather than cut him? This situation is different than Shaw's because Shaw sucked and Adams, despite his inflated weight and equally inflated ego and horrible play in yesterday's first half, is still a premier NFL DT.

I'd be content with both Henry and McGahee on the field as starters - Henry at HB, McGahee at FB. Everyone now wants to run Henry out of town - completely forgetting what he did for us in the past two seasons - but I'd first run Daimon Shelton out of town before Henry.

Paul Hamilton's comment = RJ

Is Coy Wire on the Josh Reed/Ryan Denney/Mike Williams development schedule? Well at least Coy has a sexy degree to fall back on...

Well at least SOMEONE remembers their Stats 101!

Do you honestly believe that Americans should weigh how Cheney voted on Meals on Wheels equally with how Kerry has voted on national defense for the past 20+ years? That was my point. You can have your bias on subjects - and I have mine - but I'm talking about disregarding obvious facts. Example: facts from independent sources debunking any Halliburton conspiracy. Several other posters in the thread have mentioned them, and instead of arguing them or their validity you spit out more one-liners. With Kerry's voting record, give me a few voting instances and I'll tell you my stance. How do you know that I don't agree with him on certain things? You've never asked me. I don't post on PPP that much, but I read it a lot. And I have to say that you are about as blind a partisan as is Captain America. In my limited posting experience here, I consider myself a libertarian Republican who has been more than willing to admit when my party is wrong. And FWIW in this mind-numbing debate, I'm 25%Colombian/25% Puerto Rican/50% Italian so I don't know if you can categorize me necessarily as a "white guy." I don't know, maybe you can? Who cares. I'm off to get some dinner. Peace.

Then you are going to be very disappointed with Kerry if he gets elected. But I'm glad to hear that you don't give Clinton and other Democrats a free pass.

It depends on which votes. Give me some specific examples and I'll tell you my stance. Keep in mind that I am generally against frivolous government waste and creeping government intervention unless the needs for such spending are strong/urgent/virtually irrefutable when public policy stats show a clear benefit with such programs. On national defense programs, I'll often give our Congressmen the benefit of the doubt because I'd rather be safe than sorry (example: surprise 9/11 attack).

I know you hate white people and you hate men and you especially hate white men, but think about it: are these topics at all important in the context of this country's defense against terror? That was my point. And are you implying that Cheney hates blacks and old/handicapped people because he voted against an MLK holiday and against Meals on Wheels? Because I think the reasons for his Congressional votes go beyond such simpleton assumptions.

Quit with the one liners and just read what he actually typed.

Of course I have my own political opinions, but I always acknowledge facts for facts and admit when "my party" is wrong. Do you? have you EVER done so on the PPP board? Ever?

Read HopsGuy's post right above yours. If you want to be taken seriously, check your blind partisan bias at the door.

Don't forget that both Clinton and Bush were saying the same things based on the same military intelligence. Damning evidence for sure, but this is more of an American problem and not a particular party's problem. I'm worried about our intelligence credibility now with the rest of the world. By the way, what exactly happened to the 15,000 Kurds after the first Gulf War? I assume then they were killed with WMD's that were produced BEFORE 1991 and not AFTER 1991?

Well, #1 is worse. But both presidential candidates want to go forward with #1. Kerry, however, wants #1 and says #2 at the same time.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but assuming that Iraq becomes a successful democracy (I know, a big ASSUMPTION), you don't think that will have a major positive effect on the West's relations with Iraq's Middle East neighbors? You're not buying into the regional democracy "domino effect?" It's worth noting, by the way, that no two democracies have ever fought against each other in a war, dating all the way back to the ancient Greek city-states. Regarding your other thoughts on the debates, I think you're right that both debates were basically draws, but only in the sense that they now mean nothing and Friday night's debate means everything. I thought Kerry clearly won the first debate and Cheney clearly won the second, in terms of overall performance (cumulative substance and style grades).

Cheney's referall for the listening audience