MRW

Yes, we'd beat out the Jets for the #6 seed.

Jim Mora! I can't believe he actually referenced Jim Mora by name in his press conference. Classic!

Stupid counterintuitive calculator!

Wow, that calculator is way way off. I started playing around with the numbers and put in 8/19, 100 yds., 0 td, 3 int and it came up with 95.8. Just guessing, but I don't think that's correct.

No kidding, it was ok the first time, when he first started, and I can understand playing it last week during the primetime game, but enough is enough. I think they've shown it every single time he's played.

Sorry, "racial preservation" has some rather ominous overtones to me. Don't like interracial marriage? Don't marry a member of a different race. Otherwise, let people live their own lives.

Is it really so hard to understand that not everyone shares your outrage at how bad the Bills are? That maybe to a lot of people it's an entertaining way to spend a Sunday afternoon and they don't stress over how well a football team is doing?

"J. V. Loserman". That's right up there with "Bedsore". I wish I could be as clever as you guys.

Yep, that's true if you invest the same amount, but not if you're investing the same amount pre-tax, which was my example.

OK, here's an example using numbers I pulled out of my butt: Let's say you have $1000 pre-tax to invest and the money will be taxed at 30% whenever you "earn" it. If you put it into a 401k and it grows at 10% a year (told ya I was pulling this out of my butt) it will amount to $17,449.40 after 30 years. When you withdraw the money, after 30% tax it will amount to $12,214.58. If you put it into the Roth, you will have only $700 after tax. Growing at 10% a year for 30 years that will also amount to $12,214.58. So with the Roth the initial amount is smaller, but the amount of tax paid is much smaller, and it ends up the same. That's just the math though, as a practical matter tax brackets are likely to change, and there will be a difference between the 401k and the Roth.

Actually if tax brackets stay the same and you're in the same marginal bracket when you retire as you are now, the 401k and Roth would work out to be the same. Taxed up front, taxed at the end, it doesn't make a difference mathematically. If you knew you would be in a lower tax bracket at retirement, 401k would be the way to go, 100%. On the other hand, if you're pretty sure you'll be in a higher bracket, the Roth is what you want. And of course, it's not a bad idea to hedge your bets and have taxable and untaxable income. The reason I prefer the Roth is my 401k investment choices suck, and the Roth gives you complete freedom as to where to invest it.

Do they believe the play ever starts?

Believe me, I don't want to scrap this defense, but New England scored on 5 out of their first 6 possessions. You can't pin that on the offense. Yeah, Drew had one of the worst games I've ever seen, but only the special teams came to play, it seemed to me.

Personally I think that these punts show a (justified) lack of faith in the kicker and (usually justified) faith in the defense. The kind of game that I think Mularkey wants to play is really a field position game. If we had a better kicker I would be angry about punting, but I can't say I have any confidence in Lindell trying a 52-yarder.

I'm curious - do people think the D problem was more one of improper game-planning by Gray & co. or poor performances by the players? I find it hard to put too much blame on Gray when you can't generate any kind of consistent pass rush, and Izell Reese wasn't doing anyone any favors out there. Do you agree with that assessment, or do you think Gray could've covered up these problems?

But that was on a Thursday....

I don't know, it doesn't seem to me like he's taking that much of a pounding, late hits out of bounds aside. I think durability is a concern for any back if they're running 37 times a game, so hopefully we can get some production out of other guys and not have to have McGahee take quite so many.

Isn't he signed through next year?

I think they treated it as a Cardinals challenge because they got the challenge in first. Then, since they overturned part of the original call, no timeout was charged even though what was overturned was not what the Cards had challenged. As far as the penalty being called on the replay, there are a couple of instances where that can happen, if it's not a subjective call. This was one; it can also happen when a QB throws the ball beyond the line of scrimmage. I wonder if it could be done for an offsides call?

No, I think that's true. IMO the point is more that our D should be able to shut them down almost completely and let our offense try to just play a mistake-free game.

I would agree with most of your comments on the defense, but the turnovers I'm willing to cut a little more slack. We're middle of the pack in interceptions (and Clements missed a golden opportunity for another one on Sunday) and fumble recoveries involve a lot of luck IMO. The 3rd down conversions and seeming inability to stop teams when it counts are very frustrating though. It's not that I can even say the defense is "bad" because they've shown themselves capable of shutting teams down for long stretches. Lack of focus or bad defensive philosophy on long downs?

It's "goldbricker", a cheater or fake, basically.

Good point. One of Drew's plays I was happiest with was on the flea-flicker. Nothing there, he got out of the pocket and threw it away.

Thanks for pointing this out, I thought he was great today too. At one point I was ready to declare it a great game for him even though he was only averaging 3-some yds a carry. The power he displayed on most of his runs was an eye-opener to me.

Yep, I noticed this yesterday. I live in LA so I was surprised to see games blacked out.... I guess the networks must've pressured the networks to black out the Sunday Ticket showing of the games.