Rat-boy

I own a GameCube and an Xbox. The GC is well worth the price, especially if you're into the Nintendo-only games like Zelda and RE4 (VERY VERY impressive!). Some of the cross-platform titles, e.g. Prince of Persia Warrior Within, perform much better on the GameCube than the Xbox, while others take a slight graphics hit as the GC doesn't have the horsepower of the Xbox. The sports titles I've played (Sega/ESPN, not Madden) don't look quite as good as on the Xbox, but the drop in performance is barely noticable unless you have the two running side by side. I'd say pump in the $89 and get the GC.

Hmmm...it took 8 posts on a non-Buffalo related threat for somebody to start spouting off about DB. Why the long delay? I expected a non-sequitor response within a single post at MOST.

This is one of the most insipid questions ever, as I've never seen a dog that can't swim instinctively, and I've never heard of a dog drowning. Having said that, I still go with the dog. Hey, maybe it needs some extra flotation.

And in what alternate dimension would someone question the play of Spikes this year? Oh, I forgot that on this board just about anything is possible.

In regular season action he showed the lovely prediliction toward throwing the ball on a rope while scrambling...to players with Patsies jerseys on . JP's talented, as his 2004 preseason showed. Projecting his regular season performance in 2005 is difficult at best right now. If we start him at the 2005 or he earns the job later in the season, I believe he'll be capable but will make the occasional bonehead young QB mistake. Projecting a record is tough...as a relative optimist I'll say 9-7. He'll make just enough bonehead mistakes to make many games tight down the stretch...and we all know how our D plays in tight games.

How many times are you planning to post this same drivel in different threads?

And, of course, nobody can argue with you, since because of the system we won't SEE USC-Auburn. Talk is cheap. Even good teams have the occasional meltdown, and these were kids playing in a high-pressure, high-exposure game. Once the turnovers started to snowball, it was all downhill. This doesn't mean OU sucks. Oh, I forgot...the rest of the season is rendered irrelevant, and has to be considered a collosal failure due to one blowout loss on a bad day to arguably the best team in football. And Jason White is a choker and a mediocre quarterback who can't win a game to save his life. Now what does that remind me of?

Typical post. It's no wonder pundits in this country make so much money for spouting drivel. People actually listen to it. The whole argument of "so and so is better than my left nut" is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. What matters is what happens on the field when two teams play. If the teams don't play, you know absolutely nothing. No matter how much you yap about it and how many times you keep repeating the same argument. Cal played USC tough in their backyard, losing 23-17 in a game that went down to the last play. Cal's only loss was therefore to the team that just beat the Big 12 champion 55-19 and won the national championship. The same team that just lost 55-19 shut out your precious Longhorns this year, 12-0 IN THEIR OWN BACKYARD! I'm not saying Texas sucks...nor am I saying Cal would beat Texas by the virtue of the transitive property...or that Utah would beat Texas. I'm saying that you can yap all you want about who's better than who...so-and-so played a "weak" schedule...yadda yadda yadda. The bottom line is that it should be settled on the field. Until it is, all arguments are like yours...a bunch of hot air.

Point conceded. It's not "always" a team win or loss. If you'll read my original post again, you'll notice I wrote "rarely". It certainly is possible for a bad game by the QB to result in a loss. I disagree only with those who blame EVERY loss by the Bills on Drew and Drew alone. Shouldn't their axe be ground to metal dust by now? Sheesh.

Apparently a Duke basketball player broke his foot and is out 6-8 weeks...this apparently was the same guy who went to a UNC frat party, got drunk, passed out, and was teabagged by various UNC students who recognized that he was a Dookie. Romey said "if you don't know what teabagging is, I'm not going to tell you." Hence my comment about the signature in the original post.

You fail to note that rarely do teams that change quarterbacks leave the playbook completely intact. Many changes are made to take advantages of the strengths of the new guy and minimize his weaknesses. Often there are many simplifications made so that the whole offense doesn't have to think as much. Thus, the change at QB resulting in success and changing a team's season often involves MUCH more than just a new guy behind the center.

Did you listen to Rome this morning? Can't think of any other reason for that signature.

Nice recovery following your earlier flawed argument BF! Way to fit the data to match your hypothesis. To which journal will you submit your paper for peer-review? You and the other anti-Bledsoe trolls have the vision of a horse with four pairs of blinders on. You constantly try to blame losses on DB. When the Bills win, they win "in spite of Drew." When they win six in a row you go away and are silent...only to return, OH-SO-VINDICATED when the Bills lose to Pitt, vocal as ever, crying for Drew's head...and every time you choose your data to fit your overwhelming hypothesis that Drew is the source of all Buffalo's ills. Do you have some narcissitic need for attention like ICE? Or do you just get high off saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over.... Nobody's arguing whether or not he had a lousy game against Pitt. Nobody's saying DB doesn't have glaring faults. Just TRY to accept that he's not the only player on this team who screwed up. As many have posted before, and AD reiterated in this thread: "Teams win and lose." Rarely does any NFL quarterback suck enough to have the entire game blamed on him. In the Pitt game, there was plenty of blame to go around. Drew gets his share of it.

I see your point. However, put yourself in the Dolts' shoes. Do you risk your franchise being hurt in a game that's meaningless for your because a team in your division has a chance to get into the dance? How stupid does Dungy look if Manning goes down on a fluke play? There is little "class" in professional sports. Teams will do what is best for them. Just my $0.02.

Right...teams that earned an early playoff spot haven't also earned the right to be as prepared as possible for the upcoming playoff game.

Good point. If Bledsoe is the starter, we could use: 1) Solid TE 2) More depth at OL 3) A 100% Willis and Travis. 4) Sure-handed receivers. We're not done copying the Steelers yet.

Having watched the Pitt-Buff game, it was quite evident that these teams are very similar in makeup and philosophy...mirror images of each other. We lost for one reason: Pitt did everything similarly, but BETTER than we did. It could be for a myriad of reasons. Were our boys too wound up and Pitt had nothing to play for so played relaxed, even ball? Does Pitt's offensive line more consistently execute its playcalls and block effectively? Is their defense better against the run? Was our offensive scheme too conservative (why was there not a SINGLE pass of more than 10 yards until the bomb to Evans after it was too late)? All disappointed griping about the refs, or about Bledsoe, or about competing poorly against Pitt's backups, etc., aside, the game needs to be looked at in the context of the season. What have we seen? The 2004 Bills were clearly better than the mediocre teams, but not complete enough as a team to compete with the upper echelon of the NFL. We are a few players and another year in Mularkey's system away from doing so. Anyone who blames this loss solely on Bledsoe or the refs or the D is refusing to look at the big picture. The loss to Pitt was a total TEAM loss. Pitt is just better than we are right now. I for one trust the coaching staff to make the moves, WHATEVER they are, to make the team a real contender in 2005. I think we fans tend to get far too carried away by one weeks' results. This game showed us how far the Bills have to go to compete with the big boys. Go Bills!

Oh, ICE has got it made. Here are possible scenarios for his comeback this weekend. 1. Bills win 47-10. ICE: "Bills wouldn't have won with Drew as QB against a REAL team that plays its REAL defense in a REAL meaningful game." 2. Bills win 20-19. ICE: "If Drew were a REAL QB he would have beaten the Stillers scrubs 47-10. Drew still can't win decisively against a REAL team, even at home. We are not going anywhere with Drew as QB." 3. Bills lose. ICE: "See? We're not going anywhere with Drew as QB. He can't beat a REAL defense."

What, has ICE been banned again?

Leave it to an ICE posting to bring out all the anti-Bledsoe trolls. How happy are you guys now that your fearless leader is back? Found your purpose in life again? Merry Christmas, ICE.

Good post.

DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!

Couldn't resist the self-congratulatory speech at the end I see.

Last post on this thread for me...have to work. You can ask the same thing about a ton of receivers who were great #2s but didn't succeed in the #1 role without a solid second wideout. Peerless. Harper with the 'Pokes in the '90s...Lelie (look how he fared without Rod Smith)...the list goes on. There's no definitive proof here, of course...but blazing speed and good hands do not GUARANTEE good production as the #1. That much is clear. Does LE have the ability? Absolutely. Time will tell. I'd just as soon not rock the boat if we don't have to.

Fair enough. We're on the same page except I differ with your assessment of our #1 vs. #2 guys. In my opinion Evans is stylin' because of EM's presence. Taking EM's single-year "dropoff in production" without considering all the factors is a bit silly.