KurtGodel77

You don't judge QB's by their win-lost record, because that record reflects the contribution the whole team made, and not just the work of one man. Take John Elway, a QB that many consider to be one of the five best ever. There were lots of seasons when he'd finish 8-8 or 9-7, because Elway was the only weapon the Broncos had. Compare him to Trent Dilfer, a player who once went 15-1 (including a SB win) over a 16 game stretch. Now, Dilfer isn't as bad as people say, but if you were a GM, and if someone offered you Dilfer in exchange for Elway in his prime, would you accept? Last time I checked, Bledsoe's QB rating was 23rd best for the league. BLEDSOE doesn't have the potential to go 9-3. The BILLS as a whole do. BLEDSOE will be wherever his QB rating puts him at. That's his individual contribution to the team. He's a nice guy, and I hope he improves that rating as the season wears on. But this is where he, personally, is at right now. 23rd.

"Along the shores of Lake Erie, where the locals characteristically employ the term youse and not y'all as the grammatical second person pronoun, the hybrid Oklahoma-Texas drawl of Butch Davis never really played all that well." I think that "youse" is more of a New York City thing than a Lake Erie thing. The people I know all use the word "you." When I looked at the picture of Butch Davis stalking off the field, his appearance reminded me of the last Cleveland coach to be fired.

I'd go with Brees. Brees is the third-ranked QB in the league; whereas Rivers is an unknown. Sometimes you take a QB with a high pick and he turns into Peyton Manning or Chad Pennington. Other times, he's Ryan Leaf or Tim Couch. Why should San Diego take that chance? If Rivers was worth the 4th overall pick in the 2004 draft, he should be worth at least that in this coming draft. Especially since the team taking him won't have to eat the cap room for his signing bonus.

Funny thing, your post brings up another issue about grammar: the whole its/it's thing. It's: short for it is, it has, it was, etc. Its: the gender-neutral version of his and hers.

Keep in mind that both Pittsburgh and NE have one loss each, and Pittsburgh has the tiebreaker because of its win over NE. So the Pats need to lose just one game between now and when we play Pittsburgh.

As much as I agree with this praise of McGahee, it's possible Mularkey made the right decision by starting the year off with Travis as the starter. As a rookie HC, Mularkey had to earn his players' respect. You don't do that by handing a job to a first year player over a proven veteran. Since then, McGahee has clearly earned the starting job.

I liked National Treasure a lot. It was exciting in the style of a Dan Brown book. In answer to T-Bone's criticisms of the movie; how does he know how a document would or wouldn't respond to a specific treatment? Yes it's an old document, but keep in mind it's been very carefully preserved for many decades. @ T-bone: You said, "And what laws did Ian break that Gates didn't" Attempted murder. Your point about the cash-starved situation of the newly created U.S. is valid, though.

You also want a backup running back with the ability to come in during special situations. Larry Centers was such a back, because of his ability to catch passes, run draw plays, and overall be a good third down back. You need a guy who can give the defense a different kind of threat than your starting RB. Problem is, that WM is such a complete back it's going to be hard to find a guy who offers something he doesn't. You want a physical back? WM is your man. You want a guy who can break it to the outside? Again WM. What about catching a pass out of the backfield, or picking up a blitz? WM. You couldn't ask for a better third down back than him. The only thing we could ask for more of is pass throwing. A nice slash player could give defenses something extra to worry about.

Let's look at what happened because we didn't have a first round pick who could help us right away last year. 1. We went 6-10 instead of, say, 8-8. 2. Because we went 6-10, we fired Gregg Williams, and hired Mike Mularkey. 3. Also because we went 6-10, we were able to draft Lee Evans; instead of the lesser WR we would have had to settle for if our pick was later in the round. 4. Now we have one of the best RBs in the NFL!!

Whether we trade Travis depends upon two factors: 1. What we could get for trading him 2. How much we'd have to pay to keep him. If we could get a third round pick or better, and if he was unwilling to extend his contract with Buffalo, it's a no-brainer to trade him. On the other hand, if the best we could get was a fifth round pick, and if we could sign him to a $600,000 a year extension, then we keep him.

The bunny isn't a rodent. It's now considered to be more like a primate than like a rodent.

Uh Ice, as badly as Bledsoe played in that New England game two weeks ago, he wasn't the only Buffalo player who embarrassed himself. I seem to remember our defense giving up 150 rushing yards to Dillon alone. Our offensive line couldn't give McGahee any room to run in whatsoever. Jerry Gray got taken to school by Charlie Weis. Our receivers dropped passes, and had trouble getting open against the likes of Earthwind Moreland. IIRC, the ONLY elements of the team that didn't have a terrible game were the interior of the defensive line, and special teams.

For the record, Henry is 0-5 and Willis is 5-1! You remember we started the year 0-4, with all four games being Henry starts. Then Henry got hurt, so Willis helped us win the Miami game. But then Henry returned and started in the Baltimore game, for his fifth loss. The only game we lost with McGahee was the New England game.

Keeping Travis would be short-sighted, because he's only under contract for another year. If we can get a third round pick for him, we should trade him away. Jonas Jennings was a third round pick.

The Ravens are also starting to slip. The Pats win over them yesterday actually helped us. The Ravens have acquired four losses already, and have opportunities for two more with games against Pittsburgh and Indianapolis. Their other games, unfortunately, are against Miami, Cincinnati, and the Giants. We also need to worry about the Jets; a team with just three losses. Those jerks attempted just 21 passes in their win over Arizona. Fortunately they are scheduled to lose games to Pittsburgh and New England, but that takes them up to only five losses. Their other games are against Houston, Seattle, and St. Louis.

I don't feel our defensive coaching effort is ready to take us to the next level. Jerry Gray is clearly an inferior coach to his nemesis, Charlie Weis. Notice how much better Pittsburgh's defense got once LeBeau was on board. Drew has been quietly solid for us 2/3 of the time, and 1/3 of the time he's played poorly. The Baltimore game was bad, but his performace today was good. Could Losman be a better choice next year? Maybe, but he's untested. We have to deal with the salary cap situation next year. Eric Moulds' $8 million cap figure is an obvious candidate for adjustment. If we cut him, we'll have to use another draft pick on a WR.

Seems to me that Ice was one of the people recommending we draft Mike Williams in the first place. There was this debate about whether to take him or Harrington or McKinney or that safety--Roy Williams I think his name was. IIRC, Ice suggested we take Mike Williams.

We also need to root against Baltimore. Those guys need to suffer a second-half collapse to free up a wildcard spot. I was actually rooting FOR the Patriots to beat the Ravens so this could happen. The Denver loss this evening was good as well.

lol

Because Bledsoe played his college games at that stadium!

Good point. Our other two wins would be against the Jets and Miami; and the Miami win isn't that impressive.

It's funny, the same people who have been brainwashed into thinking race is just a social construct have come to conclusions about what my race is. For all that Yokel guy knows, I'm a black man myself, and would like nothing better than for my daughter to marry within her race. It doesn't bother me that others think I'm white, but if race is just a social construct, how can they be sure? This situation reminds me of the debate about intelligence. The same group of academics who told us there is no such thing as race have, just as loudly, told us there is no such thing as general intelligence. This, despite the fact that all of the world's languages have a word that refers to general intelligence--such as the word "smart." Anyone even vaguely familiar with the standards of intellectual rigor--or lack thereof--that exist in that portion of academia realizes those professors can't possibly know enough to be justified in contradicting the collective wisdom of the entire human race, as expressed in language.

The Bell Curve's publication showed that there are publishers--not many, but some--that are willing to go against the Leftist Establishment. The reason that book got so much attention was that one of its authors was a Harvard professor. However, future books which question the Leftist Establishment's view of race will be prevented by the fact that anyone with a non-Leftist point of view is being systematically excluded from humanities professorships. The U.S. News and World Report performed a study which showed that 90 - 95% of college professors, in subjects where a political view would matter, are members of the Democrat or other Left-wing parties. The Harvard professor who co-authored the Bell Curve is an old man, who upon retirement will almost certainly be replaced by a Democrat, a Socialist, or a Communist. Those who control the universities are using their power to silence dissent. As for the issue of individual rights: a grown man has the right to have sex with a grown woman. An underage boy has the right to have sex with an underage girl. But a grown man cannot have sex with an underage girl, because there is too big a difference in their ages. Nobody points to this as a violation of individual rights. If people can be told that others are too different chronologically to make sex legal, then certainly they can be told that others are too different racially to make it legal. Especially with something like this, because it's clearly in the interest of future generations that racial diversity be preserved. If, today, we commit global marital genocide, we will have made a decision about race for all future generations to come. We don't have the right to arrogantly grab this much power for ourselves.

@tgreg: I agree that technology which allows fair use can also allow piracy. There has to be a balance. Giving IP companies everything they want can (and has) resulted in a situation far from ideal for consumers. On the other hand, giving consumers everything they want (a free product with no advertising) would result in the elimination of the IP companies. What is becoming increasingly less common is a happy medium between consumer and company. The consumer is either the predator (IP pirate) or the prey. By "prey" I mean someone who is restricted by onerous technology that prevents fair use. I mean someone who is subjected to an endless stream of advertising to watch substandard cable television content the consumer is actually paying for. I've heard the argument, "if you don't like the license, don't buy the product." The problem with this line of reasoning is this: intellectual property holders are all monopolists. If I'm a purchaser of grade A wheat (a commodity) I can go to any farmer I want. If a certain farmer is a pain in my neck (with restrictive licensing agreements and so on) I'll go to the next farmer. But if I want to watch Star Wars, I have to go through George Lucas. While this monopolistic situation is necessary to protect those who created the IP, and to give them a fair return on the time and energy invested, it can (and has) led to abuses of power. It's true that pirates have too much power with respect to the IP companies. But IP companies have too much power with respect to consumers. Any laws passed should reduce not just the incidence of piracy, but also the power IP companies have with respect to consumers.

The statements you quoted are political rather than scientific in nature. To pretend academia has any interest in an honest debate about race is amusing. There is only one permitted view of race in this country--that race is an artificial construct--just as there was only one permitted view about race in Nazi Germany. As was the case in Nazi Germany, professors who do not agree with orthodoxy are subject to intimidation. Take, for example, the treatment of the authors of the Bell Curve. I'm not saying I agree with those authors. Their relevance is this: that after they published their book, they were subjected to academic and physical intimidation, just as those who published non-Nazi points of view about race were subjected to intimidation in Nazi Germany. When academic debate ceases to be free and open, the results of the process become mere propaganda. Some of the quotes you published are flat-out lies. The idea that there is no difference between the races except for skin and hair is belied by the fact that scientists are able to tell someone's race by looking at the skull. If you've been paying attention, you've noticed articles about ancient skulls of Caucasians in western China and North America. If the people you described were real scientists, they would say, "We are interested in finding out the scientific truth, no matter what that truth might be." That's not what they are saying, nor is that how they are acting. They're saying, "We want to get rid of racism." Fine. That's their objective, and pretending they are real scientists gives an air of authority to their propaganda.