BuffaloWings

I'd venture to say there was a lot more bending the rules (or attempts to) than we would have thought. As someone said earlier, MLB teams try to steal signs or pick up a pitcher tipping his pitches. There's nothing in the rules that says they can't do that with the naked eye. If these Jets coach/players just lined up on the line and did nothing, there would be nothing to complain about.

Thank you for making this point. I keep hearing sports talk radio hosts saying how classy he is and what a great thing this is for baseball that he left $30-$40 million on the table to go play where he wanted to play and felt comfortable bringing his family, instead of just going for the money. BS. He'll be getting $24M per year in Philly. He would have gotten about $21M/year in New York and $23M/year in Texas. He went where the most money per year was, not the total value of the contract. I really don't know if he strung along the Yankees or Rangers. He probably did and it was the smart thing to do - if he wanted the most money. It's not like he did this whirlwind tour like Lebron did. Pretty much every team in play came to his home in Arkansas to give their sales pitch. Lee probably wanted to keep it low-key, no matter how impossible that was going to be. Lebron just comes off as arrogant and showy because of his stupid 1-hour special to announce to the world where he was going to play.

Exactly. It's like me saying "If I become a billionaire, then I'll run down Main St in my undies."

Perfect reason why Maybin hardly sees the field - he's not willing to do what the coaches tell him to do. This is a game of adjustments and if he's not willing to adjust, he'll have a very short career.

I don't disagree with your statements, but you're missing my point. The Packers didn't tell him to retire - Brett retired on his own accord in January (maybe February). The Packers moved on into their off-season with the seemingly legitimate assumption that he wasn't coming back. Once training camp started, he changed his mind. I have no problem with the guy wanting to play and I had all the respect in the world for his desire. But the problem was that he put the Packers into a bad spot by insisting he come back and be the starter, when they had already made their plans. Imagine that you get hired for your dream job, but the guy who had been working that job for 20 years and had (apparently) left the company decides he doesn't like his new job and wants to come back. Or this...imagine that you win 4 Superbowl tickets, but one of your buddies gives up his ticket in early January. You find a 4th guy and make all the travel plans. Then your original buddy calls you a week before the game to say he's in again and wants you to tell the other guy he's out.

He waffled. Once he unretired the first time, he insisted to the Packers that he should be playing and be the starter...all of this after they committed to Aaron Rodgers. He then pulled a spoiled brat act and forced the trade to the Jets. ESPN blew it out of proportion in the best way ever, but it's not like they're totally at fault.

That depends on how they matchup with Denver (who is also 3-10).

Remember the tone of Jerry Sullivan's article...the Bills are beating the bottom-feeders, but there's nothing to be excited about until they start beating the "better" teams of the league. Perhaps the Bills are 2-3 players away - just look at the improvement throughout the course of the season. Coaching has a lot to do with that, so if you add the 2-3 players at the right positions, it could be enough to jump the Bills into the next higher flight of teams. Not necessarily the elite group of teams, but the group that's on the playoff bubble right now.

Even when they're 4-9, we'll still get them on national TV...it's just inevitable. I'd rather not see them at all.

While this is very true, I don't think it's the case with Criqui. When I watch a game, I like for the broadcasters to create some flow to the game so it becomes easy and interesting to watch...primarily during the action. Criqui used to do this, but not anymore. He has been very choppy and difficult to listen to lately. You can hear a delay in his voice as if he's trying to figure out what happened on the play.

Once upon a time, Criqui was good. I remember watching games with him as the play-by-play man and I thought he was excellent. I think he was even the guy who called the classic Miami-San Diego OT playoff game. Of course, that was back in the early 80s and I was an impressionable early-double-digit-year-old youth. But he's not the same anymore. His call is a good 2-3 seconds behind the action and he's frequently messing up the names of the players. I noticed this a little bit with Van Miller at the end, as well. You can hear it in his voice - it's as if he doesn't know how the play is transpiring or what call a certain official makes. Heck, even when Criqui does the Notre Dame games on radio, you can tell he's behind the play.

But at least the Rams are 6-7...light years ahead of their record after 13 games last year. To me, that's an immediate impact, stats be damned. The Jets are winning (well, not lately) in spite of Sanchez. He loses confidence and the Jets go on a 3-game losing streak.

I just wish he wasn't a Scrooge so much. He can say that we're happy the Bills won and temper it with how they didn't exactly beat the 1985 Bears, but he didn't need to beat to death how it's nothing to be excited about because they didn't beat an elite team. I wonder what he would have said had they beaten the Ravens and/or the Steelers in OT...probably some excuse that the opposition had too bad of a day.

It's the false illusion that they'll become a better team once they draft the best player available. I'd love to know the percentages of top draft picks that actually help their team win right away. When a team is as bad as Carolina is (and the Bills were earlier this year), there are several holes that need to be fixed, so the #1 guy won't necessarily turn them around right away. A legit QB helps, but isn't always the answer. I've said this ad nauseum, but I always want the Bills to win, even if it "hurts" their draft position. I'd love to see them win out and knock the Dolphins out of the playoffs, make the Patriots sweat things a little bit, and make the Jets sweat their playoff chances even more.

I continue to be amazed at how fast Delhomme has fallen. Once he had that horrific nightmare of a playoff game, he's never been the same. I don't expect him to be in the league next year.

On the field, yes. The guy seems like a mobile Ben Roethlisberger. I like his poise and his mobility. Off the field, I'd be nervous. I don't necessarily believe how he had nothing to do with the pay-for-play scandal and I wouldn't trust him to be a leader just yet. I'd have a feeling he'd turn into another Vince Young pretty quickly.

I remember that game - at the Meadowlands and both Kelly & Simms were injured in that game. My college roommates & I (4 Bills fans, 1 Giants fan) started our Saturday partying early with that one. Corp is probably right in that ratings has something to do with it. I guess the Saturday afternoon games weren't doing too well with everyone shopping & all. Plus the NFL Network took over and re-established the Thursday night games and put a few on Saturday nights. Prime time is where it's at.

Once you get to this point in the season, it probably makes more sense to show a game with more playoff implications than one with two teams that are already out. Hence the Jax-NE and Pit-Mia games from last year. What bugs me about this is that there aren't many playoff implications with the one they chose. Yes, Pittsburgh will be in the playoffs, but they're favored by about 9 over Cincy...this one is expected to be a blowout. At least the Bills-Browns should be more competitive, knowing how much better the Bills are playing (note I said "how much better", not how good they are). Heck, I'd probably rather see Oak-Jax instead of the over-hyped Steelers. Pitt-Cincy is being shown to the majority of the country, too. They didn't need to add it to the Albany market over a NY team.

Well, a buddy of mine asked if I wanted to make the drive out there in case someone he knew was going to hand over his tickets. The tickets would be free, but I wouldn't be too thrilled about driving out that morning and back that night. Then there's the weather...

This is funny...as early as Tuesday, the 506 maps had the Albany area getting this game. I agree with Albany - you might as well have a NY team on in this area instead of watching broken nose Ben smack the Bengals around. Besides, if CBS6 showed the Bills & Vikings last week (two teams having bad years), then why NOT show the Bills-Browns? That's been the rule - I don't know if it's set in stone, but if the Jets or Giants aren't on, the Bills are. I know the Bills are 2-10, but it's more than shocking. I'd write to CBS6, but I don't know if it's worth the time & effort. The programming director there wanted to show Colts-Vikings over Bills-Jaguars a couple of years ago (in September, no less). He was convinced to change it, but gave everyone an attitude about it.

Yet the best thing that came out of that was after Paul Tagliabue warned the entire Bills organization for blasting the refs, Ralph came out and publicly said something to the effect of "I was forming the AFL when you were in diapers, pal. Don't tell me I can't recognize a horrific officiating job." Tagliabue didn't fine anyone for that, if I recall correctly.

I have two of mine that are pretty much tied: 1: Music City Nightmare playoff game....during THE kickoff return - "Where's the F**KIN' FLAG?!??!?!???!!??!?!??" 1a: Monday night implosion vs Dallas - I threw a glass into the hallway after the winning FG and the wife hasn't let me hear the end of it.

I don't think the streak itself is a farce - he's healthy enough to play, which is an accomplishment no matter how you look at it. Now if he starts, plays the first series, handing off to AP or throwing screens or dump-offs, then sits for the rest of the game and watches Jackson run the offense, THAT would turn the streak into a farce.

Fitz may not be the guy, but I find it interesting that there's a debate now - after Week 2, it was clear that our starting QB was NOT the guy. At least we're having a debate about whether the current QB is worthwhile. He was still trying late in the game. To me, it looked like everyone else had mailed it in. Keep in mind that the OL was decimated with injuries by the 3rd quarter. I think there were 3 out of 5 guys that were new or playing a different position. The guys that had been in there were starting to gel and get it together over the past few games. Once you introduce a new (and less-talented) player into the mix, you get what we saw yesterday.

And the only one of those guys I still have hope for is McKelvin. I know it's already his 3rd year in the league and he got beaten like a rented mule yesterday, but he's still talented. Bill, that had to be one of the most negative "Few Thoughts" posts I've seen in a long time. I don't agree about Stevie, but that may be stemming from how he's come on this year and is the big receiver we've longed for when we drafted...um...I forget...Hardy, was it? Nevertheless, in a lost season, it looks like the whole team (except for Fitz and maybe Poz & Florence) mailed it in after the 28-point outburst. These guys need to start learning how to get a lead and keep it. The way they've been playing for the past 2 months, I'm a bit surprised that they didn't let Drayton's pick-six motivate them a bit. Turn the page on this one and let's see how they play against an equally-mediocre Browns team next week.