Rubes

I don't know that this means the Bills don't think highly of Shelton, just that they don't think as highly of Shelton as they do Henry. Henry has proven his worth, as FFS says above, by rushing for big yardage 2 straight years and making the Pro Bowl. Shelton has proven he can probably be a good OL in this league, but he has not yet proven he is top-shelf, or Pro-Bowl quality. It will be interesting to see if TD holds out for more to the end or just gets the deal done.

Nicely put.

As if there was a choice.

I don't think it's entirely fair to base everything on his brief, unexpected playing time against the World Champs. I'll wait until he has an entire preseason of preparation as the #1 guy, as well as the intense preparation for an opponent in the week leading up to a game. It sure will...hopefully it will continue to be so after the first month or so....

I still just can't get over the fact that JSP is on here arguing to protect the defenseless. By the way, Joe, didn't she bring this on herself with her eating disorder? Personal accountability? Why should there be a medical settlement in the first place? And if there was no settlement, who should pay for the (potentially) decades of keeping her alive with constant care? Medicaid? You and me?

In my opinion, TD tipped his hand when he gave the following quote: Given the praises he has given in the past for TH, I'm basically thinking that this means TD really doesn't see Shelton as being worth the same as TH. A straight player-for-player trade is probably not enough for TD, and he's looking for a little more.

Does that mean that most of the players you mentioned are already eating in our cafeteria?

I agree with you, Fez, that the blitzing tendencies of other teams was probably dictated more by our offense's inability to handle the blitz as a whole (offensive linemen, TEs, and RBs, in addition to Drew not recognizing and going to the hot receiver). I have always been a firm believer that a big reason this offense was not built for Drew is because our line and RBs were just not good enough to handle complex blitzes. TH, I believe, was a fairly big part of that. I also believe that our line did improve over the course of the year, after working with JMac. Plus, as you mentioned, WM proved to be much better at picking up blitzers than TH (which, incidentally, I think had at least as much -- if not more -- to do with WM taking over the starting spot than his running ability). However, I will point out one inconsistency in your argument...the original point is that there is no way JPL could be any worse than DB, but you say "we" could easily be worse. Yes, we, as a team, could easily be worse than 9-7. But the argument here is about JPL being worse than DB, not the Bills as a whole being worse. I think the whole offense improved toward the end of the year, but in my mind what this did is allow us to see that Drew could only do so much to help the offense. He didn't have a great year statistically, nor did he seem to be a difference-maker in most of those late-season games. Plus, perhaps more importantly, in the biggest games of the year against the top opponents, he didn't elevate his game. Could JPL be any worse than Drew? Perhaps, but in my opinion, not much. Could the Bills be any worse with JPL at the helm? Sure. But so many factors go into a team's final record on the season that it's impossible to compare this coming season with this past season and say that JPL is the sole causative difference.

I'm with you, but I still can't figure out what a roater is.

FYI The opener this season between Oakland and New England is a Thursday night game, not a Monday night game.

In a sense, yes. It's apparent that you haven't spent much time on the PPP board, or else you probably would have recognized the tongue-in-cheek-ness of my comment. It really had nothing to do with your stance on the issue, but rather your coming to PPP to look specifically for "respectful, well-reasoned retorts". I don't doubt that a lot of people here are generally capable of a good, spirited discussion of politics that doesn't descend into the ugly attacks and mockery like we see here. It seems that most have become so completely intolerant of arguments and positions that are either baseless or not generally well thought-out that even those arguments that simply contrast with their own (even those that are well thought-out) become, essentially, one and the same with those that are baseless and, as such, worthy of derision. You may find a few here willing to provide a good argument and debate, but far more likely you'll just find a group whose objective is just to slap the ignoramuses back to their rightful place. That's why I knew, when I saw your original post, that you were basically just going to get ripped from one end to the other, and hence the bravery comment. I always find myself fascinated by the WNY economy and its current situation, but I haven't lived there in decades and I'm not much of an economist to debate the topic, anyway. I still believe, like most here, that raising taxes (no matter how small) is not the solution for a place that is already taxed far too much and filled with what appears to an outsider as a gluttonous waste of local government. Keep up the good fight, though. Always room for intelligent debate, regardless of what you see here...

Incredible analysis, FFS. Incomparably detailed. I will say, however, that you are the King of the Hanging Parenthesis.

Speaking of soundbytes....

I meant, he's brave for his original post looking for feedback here.

Damn....somebody out there gets paid to surf the Bills message boards. Where do I sign up?

No no no no no Listen to everyone else here, they're right.

Because the concept of euthanasia is just too liberal for this country, that's why.

Well, if nothing else, he's brave.

Oh dude, that is low!

BWAAAAA-HAHAHAHA! Nice one

Nice, I'll take that. Now, if we could just find a conservative with one, we'll be getting somewhere!

Portman? I missed that. Well, that does it for me then... Now just gotta figure out a way to see this without the wife.

So now I have to have a position on Halliburton. Honestly, Joe, I don't know a hell of a lot about Halliburton. I'm not even certain exactly what they do, although it seems to be a lot of different things. I've heard what everybody else has in the media, most of it in the time leading up to the election, and that has mostly been in the realm of innuendo. There has certainly been plenty of suggestion of impropriety on the part of the company, but I doubt we'll ever really know for sure. Am I suspicious that Halliburton probably used their connections with the vice president to position themselves to great financial advantage? Of course I'm suspicious of that. That kind of thing, I'm sure, goes on all the time. But I also know that those are just suspicions, and it's a hell of a lot better to base a position on facts rather than suspicions. If I wanted to do that, I'd have to do a lot more homework, and I'm just not interested enough. That's why I don't go around screaming "Halliburton evil!" like so many of those liberal pantywaists you see.

Well Joe, to the best of my recollection I have never discussed on this board any of my views on Halliburton. In fact, I can't remember discussing much about AIDS funding, taxes on the rich, health insurance for the poor, capitalism, or any other issue you bring up here except gay marriage, although I could be wrong. (Edit: I do recall the earlier discussion about personal accountability.) But I don't recall ever referring to Halliburton as something evil, or anything else for that matter. If nothing else, however, you are consistent, giving in yet again to that wonderful impulse of assumption, and one can only presume that this is because of my particular views on the completely unrelated subject of gay marriage. Should I assume that you have assumed my stance on the ANWR debate as well? Oh that's right, I believe in gay marriage so, naturally, I must support whatever stance those God-hating limp-wristed linguini-spined liberals support. Or is it the liberal pantywaists? I can't keep track. But who cares, right? Nobody could possibly support one liberal issue and take a different stance on another. And if they do, it must mean they just can't make up their mind. Unfortunately, for most people the world is neither black nor white, as it so conveniently seems to be in yours. I presented my views on the oil companies that sponsored that conference, and why it is perfectly reasonable to believe, and even expect, that they would have a strong interest in the subject. Seems like a decent argument to me. I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary, but somehow you think this is a contradiction. I have no mind to be made on this matter, as you would suggest, since I have never before stated any particular view on Halliburton, positive or negative, that conflicts with what I have said here. You may be assuming my view on Halliburton, and in your mind this creates an imaginary conflict, but I'll leave it to you to resolve that conflict on your own since I'm certain you can do a bang-up job assuming what my arguments and positions are anyway.

The thing I can't figure out is why Congress cares about it.