Rubes

I still don't get it. If you're talking about "using" the #1 WR once they were on to the game plan, then you're talking about the second quarter. The second quarter was when Moulds went out. Therefore, we're not using any of the decoy game plan anymore in the second quarter. So it still sounds to me like the decoy game plan (1st quarter) worked, but the "take Moulds out" game plan (2nd quarter on) didn't. So is it the decoy game plan that sucked, or the removing Moulds from the field game plan that sucked?

Ooo, wait, I found another one: EM is getting suspended for his opinion as opposed to some actual reason. This is fun. Can you find any more assumptions?

Hey cool, maybe you could shout plays in for Mularkey. I can't imagine we could do any worse.

Well, there was this public statement: Linky-poo But your point is well taken.

Hmm, let's see. First quarter, 21-0 lead. Moulds leaves in second quarter, Bills still up big. So if Moulds isn't in the game from the second quarter on, how is it that Miami was on to the plan?

I really don't see any big problem with that comment. Mostly, he has said it is a problem between the two of them. Someone asked him why Moulds wasn't in the game, and that's why. Doesn't exactly sound like pot-stirring to me.

Damn, this is a painful thread to read. Really bringing out the emotions in everyone. You know, I'm disappointed that EM was apparently not put into the game plan. I'm disappointed that he whined to the point of disruption. I'm disappointed that MM took steps that potentially alienated a senior veteran of the team. I'm disappointed in the players, I'm disappointed in the coaches, and I'm disappointed in the season. There really isn't anybody or anything I'm not disappointed with. I will say this: It sounds to me like MM is trying to take the high road and to put together a team which, like the Pats, does not focus on individuals but rather the team. When individuals do things that are against the team concept (whether it be Adams or Moulds for, apparently, being upset with the scheme that they are asked to work within) I would expect the coach to have some nads to stand up to them. I don't know what actually happened or how things were really handled, but it's unfortunate that things turned out this way. I really don't know who is to blame for that. However, I'm pretty sure that the frustration of this season contributed in large part to the way this eventually played out.

Somehow, I doubt even that.

"Every season ticket subscription comes with a free gift! A $59.95 value!"

I get the jist of the quote, but I still chuckle at the thought of Bruce Smith saying "whomever".

Sure. Everybody loves ripping TD for hiring head coaches with no head coaching experience, so why not hire a GM with no GM experience? He'll fit right in.

Can't really blame him after that loss. I felt the same way walking out of Qualcomm couple weeks back.

I still can't figure out what it's supposed to be.

That WAS Willis.

Even Al Michaels was dissing the Philly fans last night. Screw 'em all.

Miami has nice tubes?

They didn't !@#$ up, that's what they always do.

Heppy boithday!

I don't really know what it means to put cement in this crack. The way I look at it, the Bills have made mistake after mistake, last year and this year. Are they learning from their mistakes? Or are they continuing to do the same things over and over? At what point do you conclude that the message is just not getting through?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but EM's contract is not up this year, so it's not really a matter of "re-signing" him. He will count a huge amount against the cap next year, so like it is with any player in that position, the team needs to sit down and think about the value they get for the money. Will we be better off with EM in the lineup at a huge salary, or will we be better off cutting him and using the cap savings on other positions? I don't know the answer to that, although my guess is that we'd still be better off with him than without him. The other option, of course, is to try and re-do his contract. We've already done that once. I doubt there is any realistic way we can push his upcoming money any further into the future, and based on what has happened I sincerely doubt he will accept a pay cut from this organization. So "signing him at a reasonable market contract" is not quite summing up the situation realistically.

I don't advocate firing Mularkey (yet), but I just don't go along with this thinking. "If" we managed not to blow it? We blew it for a reason. It wasn't random. It happened once, then it happened again, and now a third time. How many times does it have to happen before it's recognized as something that happens for a particular reason? It's kind of like the typical coach response to a bad play call. Like if Mularkey had said, "If that first down and goal pass play had worked, nobody would be calling it a bad play call." Sorry, doesn't work that way. It didn't work, and the game was lost, for a reason.

So how about we line up that teeny little wide receiver as the quarterback and let him throw it? Yeah, you know, the one who usually doesn't throw it. The guy with the broken throwing wrist. With a big cast on his broken throwing wrist. So what? I guarantee it'll at least get a first down.

Haven't there been enough exposures this season to already know this? Raise your hand if you weren't sure that we needed a line badly. Holler "aye!" if you thought the collapses against New England and Carolina weren't enough to know that we need to finish what we start. And please, I'd really like to know if you are one that, to this point, really hasn't been convinced that we need to do a better job of calling plays! It's a sickening loss because, even this far into the season, after debacle after debacle, we still haven't begun to learn from our mistakes.

Doesn't that also count for Mularkey?

Well, I was just trying to thank the 2005 Buffalo Bills, but what the hell. Thanks for that, too!