Tolstoy

You are absolutely correct. Wishful thinking I guess. Portugal does always seem to underperform, given their talent, but there is no guarantee that this year will be like previous years.

Another team that might surprise everyone is Switzerland. They are impossible to score against at the moment. I know everyone is doubting the USA to advance to the round of 16, but I think Klinsy knows what he is doing, and has assembled the best team USA has fielded in many years. We have to beat Ghana, and at least tie Portugal, and we have a chance.

My own amateur opinion on this WC: There will be tremendous pressure on Brazil: anything less than world cup champions will be seen as a failure. I don't think the team has the leadership, character, and composure to deal with that pressure, so I predict a loss in the quarterfinals or semifinals. I am probably wrong, but that is my hunch. Spain will be tough, but I think their time has passed. Their core is four years older, with some (Pujols) retired. I think they too will lose in the quarters or semifinals. Germany will be very tough. They are my pick to win it all. They have an excellent coach, and a veteran core. However, they do have injury questions (Lahm, Sweinsteiger, etc.). If the injuries are an issue, it could prevent them from even advancing out of the group stage. They are in a very tough group. My dark horse team? France. They went home with their tails between their legs in 2010. They are talented and hungry. Second dark horse? Argentina. They are talented and due. As for the USA, I think they surprise everyone and reach the QF. So, my choices: #1 Germany, #2 France, #3 Argentina, #4 Brazil

I have assumed that Byrd has been malingering--feigning injury to avoid playing. Even if he was slightly injured, I say to myself, why can't he "man up" and play like the others? But I just had a thought. You probably already thought of this, but I thought I would say it. What if he has a touch of plantar fasciitus--enough to play, but not enough to play at 100%. What happens if he performs at less than his full potential? Sure he helps the team, but what kind of contract does he get from the Bills or another team next year, based on a less than stellar performance? Or what if it gets worse, and his play deteriorates, or he can't play at all for the rest of the season. What then? His entire future, and welfare of his family, is based on his performance this year. In short, imagine you were asked to work at less than 100% health, and that your salary for years to come would be based on your performance while working in an injured condition. Would that be fair? Again, I don't know how hurt he is, but even if he is slightly injured, you can see the reasoning. Feel free to delete this. It should probably be in another thread.

I like your optimism, I really do. But consider these successful college coaches who failed miserably in the NFL: 1. Steve Spurrier (Redskins) 2. Mike Riley (Chargers) 3. Lou Holtz (Jets) 4. Nick Saban (Dolphins) 5. Pete Carroll (Patriots originally) 6. Butch Davis (Browns) 7. Bobby Petrino (Falcons) 8. Dennis Erickson (Seahawks) 9. Frank Kush (Colts) 10. Bud Wilkinson (Cardinals) 11. Dick MacPherson (Patriots) 12. Rich Brooks (Rams) Courtesy of http://xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow/sports-successfulcollegecoachnflbusts/1/

Hey Just in Atlanta! No need to get nasty. College composition is only part of my profession. Frankly, I couldn't get much satisfaction from correcting how people speak or write for a living. I find it very tedious. However, I respect people who attempt to maintain a standard of proper English, and certainly our english teachers who devote their lives to correcting student writing and grammar. At any rate, I certainly make quite a few mistakes myself, and don't make a habit of running around correcting people's grammar. The OP was generated because it was not the first time I was frustrated reading or listening to Marrone and trying to understand precisely what he says. He may be a darn good coach (that remains to be seen, doesn't it?), but listening to him is not half as easy as listening to Chan or Marv. What is funny is that everyone is ready to anoint him the "second coming." I will reserve judgment, having gone through such dashed hopes too many times in the past. My only point is that he is not a master of the english language. Does that mean anything? No not really (although I wonder how good his speeches to his team could be....).

Check my later post. His corrections are wrong, save for one: head coach should not be hyphenated. But go ahead and get excited if it makes you feel better.

John Adams, I agree with you in as much as I don't think we should be correcting each other's grammar--that would simply ruin this message board. With that said, I do think we should try to avoid atrocious grammar (some posts are really difficult to read for that reason, and reflect badly on the author). Those are fortunately rare, and I only mention them as exceptions, I do not agree with you that starting sentences with conjunctions is ok, or that split infinitives are perfectly proper in English. This may be so in colloquial English, but not in proper English. I teach writing as a part of my profession, and I am on record to say that you are simply wrong on this matter. If we want to avoid criticism of each other's grammar, it is better to simply say that we should not be sticklers for such things on this message board, and we should all overlook the errors to which we are all prone from time to time. Let us not try to avoid such criticism by arguing that bad grammar is actually good grammar. Just my opinion!

Well done Just in Atlanta! I should not have hyphenated head coach, nor should I have turned "I couldn't care less" into "I could care less." I certainly should not criticize other people's grammar if mine is not flawless. Having said that, I still don't quite understand what Marrone was saying. Now, Just in Atlanta, I don't mind acknowledging my errors, but I expect you will do the same! Might I kindly suggest that when you are pointing out someone's hypocrisy, you should be extra careful not to fall under the same knife? For example, one of the finer points of English style is that an apostrophe is an accepted form of pluralization for an abbreviation! Yes, I know that might sound crazy, but it is true. Here is a short lesson on the matter from the NY Times Style Editor: http://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/faqs-on-style/ Oh, and while we are on the matter, the whole question of a single-space or double-space after a period is a matter of style and is quite under dispute. Here is a lovely little defense of the double-space in the Atlantic Monthly: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/01/you-can-have-my-double-space-when-you-pry-it-from-my-cold-dead-hands/69592/. As for the question of "whether" or "if," you are not correct. The terms are interchangeable here. Have a look at this discussion of it: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/if-versus-whether.aspx Finally, my friend, I would ask that you reread your wonderful examination of my grammatical hypocrisy, and you will notice little gems like the fragment at the outset of your remarks: "Since we're into grammar and all:"

Quoted on Buffalobills.com, when referring to the need to institute blitz packages as early as OTA's, here is what the head-coach of the Bills said: “Everyone in OTAs now is doing it,” said head coach Doug Marrone. “We have to get our players ready. You think about how training from an offensive standpoint, we’re getting the technique correct and then you’re going forward and working on those technique and fundamentals. Then for the quarterback he’s going to throw a route versus air. Then the next point is decision making. So the faster we can get to situations where is it zone, or is it pressure? Now they have to make decisions on the field and the better they’ll become and the better the evaluation for us.” Whew. I can't follow that. We could be in for some painful post-game press conferences. But, I suppose that doesn't really matter. If he wins, I could care less whether he puts a grammatical sentence together.

Here is a novel idea, right out of the libertarian playbook: get rid of the drinking age altogether. Let parents raise their children--not big father government. And let the hammer come down on those who disturb the public in their alcohol consumption, or drive while intoxicated. For the latter--they lose their license for 10 years, no exceptions.

I agree that the real problem with lowering the drinking age is the possibility of more drunk drivers. However, there is a cost. Young people now drink secretly, and lose the opportunity to learn how to drink responsibly in the company of mature adults; our legal system spends our resources prosecuting young people who drink illegally; college campuses are overrun with the problem of binge drinking; etc. I also think it is just silly to deny a 20 year old a bottle of beer. However, all of this is a price I am willing to pay to stop more drunk drivers. Still, I wonder if there could be another way. For example, I was in the Netherlands recently, and their drinking age is 16 for wine and beer, but 21 for a driver's license. I don't think we could do this here, because we don't have the train system that they do (or the bike-riding culture), but I wonder sometimes. I was struck by how many 17 and 18 year olds were sitting at cafes and restaurants quietly enjoying a beer or a bottle of wine with their meals. I am sure young people get plastered there too, but there was at least a hint of maturity in this regard that I rarely see here.

Of course I think that obeying the law is important. However, I can't help but think that there is something absurd about a law that brings about a "sting" operation at the Ralph to nab 20 year olds for drinking what was probably a few beers. For heaven's sake, these are grown men and women who can and often do have families, full-time jobs, and can fight and die for their country. They can't enjoy a beer legally???? I'm sorry, but this law needs to change. We should clamp down on drunk driving--yes, but lower the drinking age for wine and beer. We need to teach teenagers how to enjoy beer responsibly (i.e., in our presence), not force them to drink cheep swill in private.

This is a good thread. While in one sense it does matter whom the Bills draft (i.e., some players have better talent and more drive than others), in another sense it doesn't because the Bills lack the culture of achievement necessary for good player development. I do think the Bills coaching staff is better than it has been in previous years, but it may not be enough in itself to change the culture of losing and failed player development. Consider Gronkowski as an example. We might think to ourselves: "How lucky the Patriots are! If only we had drafted him, he would be scoring 15 TD's for us!" That is silly nonsense. If he were drafted by the Bills, we might very well be debating whether he is a bust. Why? Because he would not have been nearly as successful here. In order to do what he is doing in NE, he needs: A superior QB an O-line that can do its job and protect the QB, and doesn't need his help all the time to do so other very good WR's that can take coverage away from him an offensive coach who can create schemes to free him up (I actually think we have this with Gailey) a defense that can keep opposing offenses off the field etc. It kind of makes a person a little depressed.

I guess I really didn't understand the hype about him until I read this article from the Wall Street Journal today (below). Now I finally understand why people so deeply and passionately support him. Only a real cynic can dislike this guy--he has IMO the hint of human greatness about him (and that greatness has very little to do with football, and more about having a big heart, strong character, and devotion). My apologies to the moderators--I didn't want the WSJ article to get buried in a 30 page thread, which is why I started a new one (feel free to shut this down). Here it is, a real eye opener for me: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203413304577084770973155282.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel_1

Well, ok I am back. Anyhow, I don't think the Packers and Steelers have had the down periods that we have had. The Pack, if I recall, were kind of bad for a few years in the 90s, but then they had Favre and won the SB in 98, and things have been pretty good right up till now, and will be for a long while more. The Steelers have been the Steelers for as long as I can remember. The Bills have been really really bad for over a decade now. They are bordering on historic badness. As for the Colts, I didn't want to suggest they were bad purposefully, though now that you mention it...

Yes, yes, this is another Andrew Luck thread. But listen to this. What kind of draft system allows a team that has had the best QB in the last 15 years, and that has been a perennial SB contender, to tank one year and then be in position to draft....the next great QB for the next 15 years? See the Indianapolis Colts. Meanwhile, the crappy Bills, who haven't made the playoffs in 11 years, have only a mediocre crappy season, and are out of the running for the great QB. Draft position should either be a lottery, or based on average finish over 10 years. Having said that, the main problem with the Bills is ownership. The Steelers, Packers, Patriots etc. have all been operating under the same system as the Bills, and they have found success. So we really have no excuses. But the draft system is still stupid. I'm really really tired of having a crappy football team. Go ahead and say nasty things about my post. I don't care anymore. The NFL is stupid. The Bills are stupid. This site is stupid. I am going to follow curling or something.

I watched some of the game, and can say that it was a mixed bag. On the positive side, it looks like Shea and Chandler have locked up spots with this team. On the negative, I still don't see that playmaking midfielder and dangerous striker. Oh well, someday I hope.

A very intelligent post. I wholeheartedly agree. I compare this team with the 90-94 Bills team, and it is day and night. That team, whatever its flaws, had elite talent. I am not sure this team does, with the exception of maybe Fred Jackson, who deserves all the praise one can give. Maybe that makes this team more praiseworthy, and the season more enjoyable, but it is simply not sustainable. This may be a playoff team (I hope!!), but it sure is not a SB championship team. The problem is that this temporary success will undermine the Bills' draft position, which will make it that much harder to draft elite talent. Detroit is benefitting from that now (we have largely squandered it in recent years). How happy would we be if Indianapolis goes 15-1, and drafts Andrew Luck, who leads them to another 15 years of playoff football? Here we are, eking out 4-12 season after 4-12 season, with a 10-5 season mixed in, and Indianapolis has one down year, and drafts a once in a decade QB that we will never see? Ugh.

He was a true visionary. I have been a devoted apple user since the early 90's, and I can say that I am very, very sad. He was a great mind, and he is gone forever.

Ok, you are all correct! Thanks. I should just enjoy the ride here, which might end any Sunday. There are many more important things to worry about. On a side note, it occurred to me this morning that if the team can keep up its winning ways (and it doesn't need to go undefeated, of course), it would hard to imagine this team moving to another city should something unfortunate happen to its owner. What I mean is this: with all of the renewed local passion surrounding this team, and with all the national attention, there would be a local and national outcry if Ralph were to pass away tomorrow, and the NFL allowed the team to move. Of course, such a thing could happen, but it just seems that there would be more support for Buffalo at the national level. Finally, I know you all laugh at my screen name (Tolstoy), but I tell you he is one of the greatest writers ever. His works are completely enjoyable and absorbing, and have tremendous insight into human nature. If you like to read, I highly recommend War and Peace, which I am just rereading now. It is fantastic. Or, speaking of worrying, try his short story "the Death of Ivan Ilyich." You won't regret it.

A Bills fan since 1985, I can say that I am as happy and excited as any other Buffalo fan at the Bills' success. The entire organization should be congratulated for their success, since 3 straight wins in this league are very difficult to achieve. I just want to say, however, that there are some warning signs that indicate we should not get our expectations too high. Above all, our defense has had a difficult time stopping opposing offenses. Second, we have been down by 18 or more points in 2 of the first 3 games. These two facts alone are signs that we are not a championship level team. Maybe these things will change over the next few games--I hope they do. But I am fully expecting one or more disappointing losses in the next few games--because of those bad signs. Having said that, I fervently hopes that the blue-collar work ethic of this team, the intelligence of its coach and QB and RB, and the heart of all the players, will overcome whatever weaknesses it has. And it should be said that success breeds success. A good team with confidence can help good players develop into great players, such that talent will grow and flourish when it has the right environment. That is why we watch every Sunday, and cheer for my Buffalo Bills. Let us not, however, be crushed if they lose very soon.

Wins are always better than losses, except in retrospect! So, 10 years from now I wonder if we will wish that we lost a few more games this year and had gotten Andrew Luck... Yeah yeah, I know he might not go #1, but I think chances are he will, and chances are that this Bills team will not be the worst in the league. From a long term perspective, I am sorry to say, we would be better off doing badly this year. Go ahead everyone and yell at me. I don't care. I have had enough misery and it won't change until we have a Manning/Rodgers/Rivers at the QB position. Only then do we have a chance at a dynasty.

I'm not saying that I would want this, but what if the NFL loses the whole season to the lockout and labor issues? What then? Would the draft next year (assuming there would be one) have the same order that we had this year? If so, we would have a great shot at Luck, especially since the two teams ahead of us don't need QB's. Too many assumptions here, but it is an interesting thought.

I am a college prof., and while I won't deny seeing the occasional student smoking, it is nothing like it was at one time. Quite simply, smoking has become unaffordable, and smokers are by and large meant to feel ashamed of their habit (I know, because I smoked for 24 years). The number of smokers is in decline (see, for example, this article that I happened to read this morning http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/articles/2011/04/01/fewer_women_dying_of_lung_cancer/?p1=Well_Health_links The push against smoking is just beginning. Witness that the governor of Arizona just proposed taxing smokers (and obese people) $50 each per year, to help cover the costs of Medicare for those with smoking and obesity related illnesses. So, while there are still smokers, there still might be football players. However, it won't be sanctioned by parents, the medical association, and the mainstream media. There will be no more youth (tackle) football leagues, and it will be eliminated from colleges as a supported athletic program. Maybe it will take 10 years, maybe 25. It is just a matter of time.