Offside Number 76

THIS is more what I'm afraid of. I don't get wasted at games (in fact, I rarely go because of the number of people who do get wasted at games), but I am prone to scream obscenities when the team screws up, and I want to be able to let it all out without disturbing someone's precious snowflake. I guess I see the other side of it: if you want to bring a child to a game, expect some foul language. (But there should be no need to expect violence or the type of behavior that Sen describes below.) I've seen this scene too many times. Disgusting.

I like the middle ground idea a lot, mostly because (as above) I don't like the atmosphere at the stadium at all, but hold on there--the furry mascots are recent, kids definitely play music, including rock, at a pee-wee level, and music has always been a family activity. Well before there was football, families were singing together and fathers were teaching sons how to play instruments. Still happens all across the country. Yes, there is no Alice Cooper kids day, but I would argue that there shouldn't be a Bills kids day, either. The idea of Alice Cooper kids merch has me laughing, though. (And I am not an Alice Cooper fan--just picked that one because of the concert last night.)

http://www.buffalonews.com/city/article535666.ece "This is a family event, so watch your mouth, or you'll catch a whole lot of heck." I've never been a big fan of the way a lot of people act at games. On the other hand, I don't necessarily think that a NFL game needs to be a family-friendly event; in my mind, it's a place for grownups to blow off steam, like a rock concert is. I wouldn't have taken a 10-year-old to see Alice Cooper last night; why should a football game be different? (And more kids will grow up to make at least some money playing music than will grow up to make at least some money playing sports, so the "role model" argument doesn't work for me.) I'm more concerned about grownups staying out of fights and car accidents than I am about making the stadium a nice place for children.

I don't remember Quentin Jammer being panned at all. I remember him being highly touted. Like Dareus--so your analogy might still be good.

Fakes happen. I can't point to a game, but I'll bet Belichick himself has called one. Muffed snaps converted for 2 (or 1 in the old days) also happen. Saying "I like it the way it is," which I do, isn't the same as saying "that's the way it's always been so let's not change it." I like the color of my living room walls; I'm not changing the color because I like it, not because I fear change. And the play doesn't always succeed. That's why they have to try the point. Some really interesting games have occurred where a team has to go for a touchdown to win late rather than a field goal to tie, or to try for two to tie rather than kick for one, because of a missed point earlier. That's one of the reasons why I like it. Would you have the Bills automatically start the season with two losses and the Cheats with two wins because statistically, that's what's supposed to happen? As for the importance of kicking in the game, I'd like to see more emphasis on a kicker's skill, not less, but is moving the PAT back to the 20 really going to change much? Any NFL kicker should hit that with similar regularity. I wouldn't mind wider, college-style hashmarks, and have the point kicked from either the center (if the touchdown was scored in between the hashes) or the hash marks (if outside).

Listening to Schopp beat up on wasted callers is usually the most fun part of a Bills Sunday for me, unfortunately.

But very little opportunity to run a fake for the 2 points or to salvage a bad snap for the 2 points. There's nothing wrong with how it is now, really. Er, they already are...did you mean something else?

Are you kidding? Tebow owes his draft selection and his big contract to ESPN. The guy's entire career is a creature of the media.

Watched that with my sister at a bar in Chicago (not Lincoln Station--the other one, the one that's a pretend biker bar most of the time--Delilah's or something?). As soon as it happened, I gave her a hug because we both were disturbed about the hit, and told her to finish her drink because we had plenty of time to go to Lincoln Station before resumption of play. Neither of us wanted to see the replay, much less watch the carting-off, etc. It was completely effed up, and we knew instantly that the kid was DONE. I'm happy he can walk. No, you're not the only one.

No.

2011.

Often enough that they named the offense after him. As for Chandler, didn't he have a huge drop out in the open against Chicago in the first quarter?

Well, not every kickoff. Also, like you and others, I remember kickoffs from the 35 and the 40 and have no problem with this.

You couldn't put it in the GDT or the first-half thread? Your observations are so much more special and important than anyone else's? Should everyone do this?

I think we have to be a little more patient than two drafts and one offseason. I can't tell yet if Nix is a good GM or a bad one. And I certainly can't tell whether Chan is a good coach; the only thing I can tell is that he doesn't have very many good players to work with. Also, I think Nix has made more than one good move. Getting rid of Edwards was addition by subtracting a distraction, and I like the Merriman and Barnett moves.

I want to see a sack from Dareus and some serious run contain against the 1s, and a touchdown at any point in the game (because the team has to learn some success on offense).

That is EXACTLY what will happen.

Very cool, Promo. Have fun.

As a guy who didn't want Vick here, I can't complain that the Bills don't have him. But that doesn't make it right for the league to manipulate rosters this way.

He sure did. The big problem is that they're not allowed to have a job. Either cut practice to 20 hours/week and let them have legitimate jobs, or give them $3000 in walking around money per semester (yes, I think that's plenty). I don't know how much has changed since the late eighties, but we weren't going out to dinner at nice restaurants too often. Bennigan's twice a semester was about it. And I don't think the scholarship athlete needs any more money than the scholarship musician or engineer does (I understand that kids in those categories are allowed to work--but I also understand that they'll be putting in a hell of a lot of time practicing or studying, meaning they're not going to earn more than about $3000 per semester working). Also--let's not forget that the scholarship swimmer, wrestler, track star, etc. seems to get by without a job and without any handouts from boosters. They can't work, either. So what? The water polo kids aren't allowed to work, either. (See above...) How much do you think the UB programs make? Most programs do lose money. Miami probably doesn't, though. The best solution is a true minor league system for football and basketball. Then a kid can make a real choice between pursuing sports and college or just sports. Works just fine for hockey and baseball players.

Well, it did give Vince Wilfork to the world. Then again, it gave Jim Kelly to Buffalo. But all around, I'll agree that it's a massive bag of d*cks.

http://sports.yahoo.com/investigations/news?slug=cr-renegade_miami_booster_details_illicit_benefits_081611 The University of Miami is going down. I mean, SMU-style, going down.

Looks like another thing that the Sabres handled well and the Bills didn't: the number 11.

Nice.