RLflutie7

No you're getting it wrong, as usual. It's not responsible for credit card companies to raise interest rates to a 30% rate on an account that was never late or never overlimit. It's called bait and switch. I guess you don't understand that concept. Regardless, I have a standing offer from one of my credit card companies that if I pay $500 dollars on the card, they'll give me a $264 credit. I only owe $850. I don't get it. It's not late or anything. They also raised the interest rate to 26%.

Your post is way off base. You are assuming that credit cards companies have acted like a "stand up guy" in the recent past. I've had credit cards since 1984 and they don't function the way they used to. I sent a credit card bill 15 days before it was due and they charged me $39.99 for a late fee. They got my check in time. They just held it and posted the payment 1 day after it was due, so they could charge me the $39.99. I didn't pay the next month's bill and they called me and said they'd remove the two $39.99 charges if I made a check by phone payment. That would have never happened back in the 80s. The credit card companies brought this on themselves. I doubt that you'll get annual fees on your credit card accounts because you'll go to another credit card and they know that. They'll simply attach larger annual fees to the deadbeat accounts. They'll require a cash deposit to get a credit card for deadbeats, just like the old days. I understand what you're saying when it comes to a business taking a dump. They won't take a dump for someone else. That's why electric cars will never work. Once electric cars reach a certain point, like 1 million sold, the oil producing nations will lower the price of gas to $1.00 a gallon. And people will go back to driving gas powered SUVs. The oil producing countries are not going to take a dump for someone else. They'll keep lowering the price until they get the market back. As far as credit cards are concerned, I've heard so many different things from different people. I've heard horror stories about Capital One, but I've never had a problem with my Capital One accounts and I have two accounts and I've been late on both. I have a credit card raise my interest rate to 29.9% and I was never late on that one and that happened this month.

The picture you paint is why coaches like Marty Schottenheimer always lose in the playoffs. Marty wants to run first all the time and he runs too much in the redzone, never taking chances, even with good field position outside the redzone. In 2004 he changed his tune and the team had a great offense. He liked Antonio Gates, so he was more willing to throw the ball down field. Marty and Drew Brees had a fight in 2003 on the sidelines when Marty benched Brees for no reason (in Pittsburgh after a goofy turnover that wasn't Brees' fault). I love Doug Flutie and everything, but that benching was uncalled for. It was Marty's conservative game plan that was causing the problems. He had no confidence in Drew Brees. In 2004, Marty said "Martyball" is dead and they became a great offense. Bottom line: You have to have confidence in the passing game as well as running the ball, because all good teams stop the run and if you can't pass you have no chance to win. The best defenses in the league stuff the run and control field position and the only way to counter that is to have a good passing game.

Yes and that's why I don't put too much value in passing stats. Also a receiver who has over 100 yards receiving in a game is a worthless stat, because it doesn't indicate a winning team.

The only stats I look at are team stats. Because it's a team game. The yards per play thing would confuse me. I look at yards gained and yards given up during the entire game. I know Parcells says rushing attempts per game are a huge indicator. I think coaches concentrate on turnovers and I think that's a mistake because turnovers are not predictable. I ignore turnovers because you could be looking at dumb luck. I also don't put much value in passing stats because a QB can have off days or his team runs to ball too much.

Very true. I don't think DBs are very important either when you look at who wins in the NFL. The Broncos won SBs with one of the worst pass defenses in the league. Twice. But I do think RBs are important and it's funny that so many teams keep 10 WR, 10 LB or 10 DB and have only two RB. Can't figure it. I'd keep at least four RB.

Marty has said he won't coach again.

What's he talking about? I think Phillip Rivers compares to Bernie Kosar. Marino had 3 times the arm that Rivers has.

I'm sorry but Kelly did have a great defense and he had all the studs on offense too. Although, I do consider that Kelly won a SB (because the kicker missed the kick and to me that's a win). The Bills had the top run defense in the AFC those years (or they were in the top five) and most of the time, the teams with the top rush defenses in their conferences make the SB.

Levy and Butler made a bad decision IMO. I thought Kelly retired way too soon.

Van Brocklin was huge man and he could really throw the ball. He beat Vince Lombardi in a championship game and people almost never mention his name. Thank you for doing that.

I think it's hands down Joe Montana. But I think Terry Bradshaw should also be on the list. He did win 4 SB and he played up until 1983. Tom Brady comes in second and I think Marino is a great name on the list. I think Marino was one of the most feared QBs of that time. He had a Joe Namath type quality about him.

That Aikman had all that great talent and cashed in with SB victories is what makes him great and a top 10 QB. Many QBs get to play with great players and they still never win a SB, plus they have a great defense. Aikman probably had one of the best defensive teams to play with also, but that doesn't diminish his status.

They had these tent cities in Arizona when I lived there and they got plenty of attention from the media. That was almost 6-7 years ago. And it was homeless kids on drugs, old people on drugs and middle age people on drugs. Arizona has a large homeless population because the homeless are not stupid. They get on buses and go to warm climates during the winter. And then go back to the colder areas during the summer.

People seem to forget that Aikman did win 3 Superbowls. And if Jimmy Johnson would have stayed on, he probably would've won more. It's no secret that Aikman didn't get along with Barry Switzer.

I think Troy Aikman was a better QB than Brett and he was far more underrated compared to Farve. Aikman doesn't have the stats that Brett put up, but I think Aikman was far less mistake prone. I also think that Farve is way overrated and I don't think the fans ever loved Brett as much as the media did. But Farve does have great arm strength and that's what the pros look for, so he'll always be highly rated in the NFL's mind. And the bottom line is he can still throw a ball and he's a tough SOB, so he'll find a home this season if he wants it. If he wants to play in Denver they'd probably take him. I know I would.

Yes he should still play. I don't have a problem with it. I'd take him in Denver. But I think people are tired of him. He shouldn't retire if he still wants to play. He should make it be known that he wants to play regards of what anyone thinks. The media and the league have been pushing him to retire. My thing is . . . he never said he wanted to quit. The media just hounded him until he retired. He should have said I'm not retiring . . . get over it.

I'll take him in Denver. We have two second string players that will compete for the starting job. I think Brett throws way too many interceptions but I'll take him. I'd also take Jake Plummer back.

I'm thinking the same thing. He's a big kid.

Cushing is the best player in the draft IMO.

Couldn't agree more. There's always that option of trading him if the Bills are still sold on Edwards. I don't think Denver will pass up on him. I've seen many different things, including Denver taking a RB. I don't want Denver taking a RB that early, maybe later. And I'd welcome Sanchez to the fold in Denver. It's Denver's glaring need. But they could go defense too. They need it bad. I'd prefer the QB. Bottom line, it's anybody's guess.

What you are saying "more than capable of being starters at the NFL level" is like a Bronco fan saying Chris Simms is the real deal.

No it's not. The Bills need RB and QB. Lynch is overrated. He can't seem to avoid contact enough.

I'm not impressed with the starting QB or RB for the Bills. Edwards lacks arm strength and Lynch runs into traffic too much and he can't seem to break tackles as well as advertised. Taking the USC QB Sanchez wouldn't be too bad and I'm thinking the Kansas State QB Josh Freeman wouldn't be so bad either. I'm not that impressed with the crop of running backs but I'm sure the Bills can find and effective runner. I'd take Moreno even though he seems a smallish 217. Wells is heavy at 235 put he's worth a look.

The Bills biggest need is RB. I'm not impressed with the two they have right now.