MadBuffaloDisease

He's still lucky. Look at the time he's gotten, and how his receivers are wide open. Also look at an O-line that doesn't allow RB's to lose yardage on a large number of running plays.

The Pats are going to win easily. If they do, I'm right. If they don't, I'm wrong but happy. Hopefully that jinxes them, though.

Pennington can't get him the ball deep. He'd be bitching and moaning all the time.

To me it doesn't matter WHO is the QB. The problems with the O-line would still be the same. And as my point is that talking about how a mobile QB like JP will magically make the line run-block better, or make the WR's catch balls better, or TE's play better, is sheer fantasy. So be it Drew or JP, the Bills need a better O-line, TE, and 3rd WR, in that order. If Losman pans out, great. If not and without upgrades on the offense at the other positions, it's going to be a long season if Willis keeps running for negative yardage a lot and JP is forced to scramble.

Will do. I have to see the full pilot myself. I saw parts of it last year and wasn't impressed, then saw it again recently and liked it.

Tune into the new Battlestar Galactica instead. A lot of interesting changes from the original.

I agree. Time to finally address the O-line properly.

You mean like Michael Vick and the 46 sacks HE took?

Brady is cool under pressure. But guess what? So is the rest of his team.

My sincerest hope is that Wilson, Donahoe, and Mularkey give McNally carte blanche with the O-line, allowing him to make any and all moves necessary to make it a top unit. As I've been saying and is well-documented, it all starts with the O-line. Get one to open up holes for Willis, and he can get 1,800 yards. And since this is a run-based offense, it all will open-up from there. Then the Bills can concentrate on TE, 3rd WR, and kicker.

No, big dick. Bednarik sure sounds like a major one.

Uh, DING, thanks for playing! In 2001 Brady took the same number of sacks on average that Bledsoe did in his first 2 games in 2001. And once Willis was inserted into the starting lineup this year, the average number of sacks taken by Bledsoe went from 3.8 a game to 1.6, which translates to 26 sacks over a 16 game season, which is the number of sacks that Brady took this year with the Pats, his lowest since becoming their starter. Considering the Bills' O-line, WR's, and TE's aren't as good as the Pats', and neither was the Bills' running game, that's pretty significant, dontchathink? Like I said, when the Bills can field an O-line that doesn't put Willis in the top-3 in rushes for losses, when they can find a reliable 3rd WR, and when they can get a decent TE and/or incorporate him into the gameplan, THEN we can start talking about how much Bledsoe held back this offense.

If the owners get their cap (and I suspect they will), they will effectively have "won." If they follow the NFL's model and base the cap on a percentage of revenue, then all teams will be profitable and thus the league will be profitable and stable for as long as the CBA remains. And when you consider that an owner's potential "career" is a lot longer than a player's career, it's a longer-term "win." And again, since the NHL will be around (potentially) a lot longer than players and even owners, it's the best thing for the league, which also is the best thing for the players. The problem is the players don't know that or don't WANT to know that, since their careers are short and they are thinking short-term and the money they are losing. The only "cooperation" the owners need from the players is to agree to the cap and to play, while the players need the owners to be truthful about revenue.

Like I said, when the owners decide to use replacement players (it's coming, watch), the players union will crack. That's the way a lot of these types of things need to get resolved, i.e. a cold, hard, slap in the face to the players. Sorry that the players with their inflated egos think they should be making as much as the owners. The fact is, they shouldn't. If they don't like it, they can play elsewhere, or try to form their own league (ha, good luck!).

Don't you mean "spank..."

Yep, the infamous Jim Rome interview of Jim Everitt, where Rome called him "Chris." I remember seeing that at the time, and it's somewhere on the net if you want to do a search and see for yourself.

Maybe if Kelly's head was clear, he would have changed-up the snap count so that the Cowboys couldn't key on it. Once he got hurt (early-on, with the Bills leading, barely IIRC), it was over.

What Danny SHOULD have done is tell Michael "go ahead, tell them your brilliant ideas," you know the ones involving hookers and prostitutes? That would have set-off Carolyn at least and made Trump rethink the exemption thing. I was waiting for Danny or Trump or someone to ask Michael, but they didn't. Even though it was ultimately Danny's fault they lost (they would have won if they had used just a simple slogan like "Taster's Choice is music to your mouth," to go along with the iPod thing), focusing the attention on Michael's stupid/misogynistic idea might have been in the vein of Bradford getting fired (i.e. not being responsible for the loss, but doing something else to deserve being fired). Too bad because I liked Danny.

I have the same problem and wanted to post something on this as well.

I could give a rat's ass, and likewise for them I'm sure. But some media members are sure starting to take notice.

I like Lindell and excused his lousiness from beyond 40+ yards because he was good from inside that. Then when he missed a 28-yarder against the Steelers in THE play that turned the game, I wanted him shipped out on a railcar.

Polygamy dude, polygamy.

Wow, another writer who has a clue. Add him to Skip Bayless who wrote the same thing. But like I said, if the Pats beat the Eagles convincingly AND/OR without the aid of the refs, I'll give them their props.

It was all the late-night/early-morning partying the night before/day of the SB's. Except for the Redskins SB since the Bills had no chance in that one.

Bingo. All religions teach these values. The role of "god" is of the ever-watchful eye to make sure you DO do those things when no physical person is looking. It's just a shame that religion has become so perverted, because it has its place for those who can't do the right thing on their own.