Offside Number 76

The problem was the bold part, not the part about kicking the field goal. There wasn't even a decision to make about whether to kick; you kick that ball every time. If there was a boneheaded call--and I think it's a pretty big "if" considering that the team was going to take a shot at the end zone on what it thought was first down--it's the timeout.

Anyone who is a college football fan should be watching this game, and not just for Ryan Mallett, either.

Kick the ball out of bounds and rely on the world-class defense to hold for twenty seconds, and it's a non-issue.

If there's a curse, explain the Patri*ts. They forsook him, too. As did the Bears--they've been to a Super Bowl since (but lost). This whole concept is stupid (not you, OP, but the article you posted).

Sino-Russian scientists have measured Fitz's head, and have compared it to Sputnik. It is exactly the same size, and, more curiously, is the same temperature on the Kelvin scale. Also, both Sputnik and Fitz's head have been autographed by that famous Sino-Russian, Alexander Mogilny.

Usually, when people on the Internet are talking about a "moran," they are referring to this picture: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-morans.htm It's good stuff. Can't speak for the poster to whom you were referring, though.

Similar here. I'm not much of an NFL fan. I'll just watch college ball. But I don't think the Bills are going to move.

Almost works. Favre hates vanilla latte, though, so I think if you switch that to a chai tea, you've probably got a deal that works.

Nick, as promised, I listened, from about 12 to about 1230. Your guest at noon, a guy from Bills Digest or something like that, was ok. But just ok. (That's the guest, not you.) Your next, someone named Sara(h), was uninteresting even for someone in Washington (Sara(h) is a Redskins fan). It cannot be easy for a young guy braking into the biz. You weren't bad at all; I'll give you another listen, but please, take more calls, or line up some folks that won't make me want to snooze.

Give what up, already? This isn't a campaign. If Edwards is benched, Fitz will not be considered as a potential starter. Brohm might. Fitz is there as a game-managing backup in the event of injury. Brohm is there as a guy who they may consider as a starter someday. And frankly, I don't really care either way. This team's next great QB is not on the roster.

bump. it's going to be a new thread if I don't bump, and maybe even if i do.

I'm not a Sully hater, but that was insane.

All right, Nick, I'll give you a listen today.

No. He'll be sacrificed for one more game, and then we'll see Brohm in week 4, if Trent stinks it up today and next week.

I prefer GR55 because it is less of a cheerleader for the team, but the flip side of that is that the hosts can get a little TOO negative. But 97Rock's coverage isn't bad. Post-game, it's 55 all the way for me, because Schopp is hilarious when he gets a caller who is completely wasted.

Mallett sure looked like a pro yesterday, and he doesn't play directly against Georgia's freshman QB or substitute WR, either. I think AJ might be seeing things through garnet-and-black-tinted glasses. I did not see Luck yesterday; I have no interest in Locker. Mallett or the OL from Washington, as far as I'm concerned.

You may have had a point, but you lost a reader.

here's some kerosene for the fire: http://boards.giants.com/forums/thread/1848481.aspx

McKelvin is nothing short of awesome in season openers, right?

You are right on the onside kick; it's such an obscure situation that I had forgotten the rule. By "worked," I mean exactly that. It was SOMETHING to hope for, rather than nothing. The O got the ball back, there actually were only 29 seconds left, and it was better than being down by six--or ten!--also with no timeouts left.

The whole thing is a fascinating study of dysfunction. Thanks for posting it; it will make for some fun dissection at work during the week.

Onside kick? On a free kick after a safety? Or am I not getting it? Either way, the safety worked; the offense didn't on the last possession. It proved to be a smart call. Not sure what the argument is.

The Bills didn't complete long passes the entire freaking day. Fourth and ten from the one? No, it was the right call, and it did work. Gailey put trust in his D, which, if a certain coach had done in 1999 (by kicking out of bounds in a game where Buffalo's D ruled), the Bills may have won a playoff game. Did it work out? No, because the next O possession sucked. Was it the right call? Well, the Bills' D proved that it was. No safety only meant that the Fish would go up by six (at a MINIMUM), rather than five.

It did work, and that's why they call it a "safety." The next offensive series is what didn't work.

Agreed. Consider, too, that the Bills had the third-fewest plays from scrimmage yesterday. http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&season=2010&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=ALL&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=SCRIMMAGE_PLAYS&d-447263-n=1 Sometimes, you can say that's because the defense didn't get the opposing offense off of the field, but not yesterday. The problem was a failure to advance the ball and gain first downs.