Kgun5

Do you have a link for that, I looked a both Bills stories in the SS and couldn't find it. Thanks.

The problem all started with taking the TO in the first place. The Bills had 1:20 to work with and 1st&G on the 2. By taking the TO, you are effectively limiting your options to pass-pass-pass (which they ended up not doing, and you saw the result). 1:20 is more than enough time for 3 plays, plus, the less time you leave the Jets with, the better. So run a play instead of taking a TO...Run or pass (keeps the defense guessing). If you throw and miss, you stop the clock with say a minute left, have a TO, and still can do anything. If you run and miss, you have the clock ticking down from 1:00, and can either run a pass play or call the timeout. Either way, once you're at 2nd down, you're under no time pressure, and have plenty of options in the play calling arena.

Mcgee was clearly a goat yesterday. Yes, he picked up a fumble that bounced to him, which I guess could count towards his being in good position to make a play. He made a nice return, but that's his job (on KOs). Yet McCarrins had 163 yards, and at least 120 of those came against McGee coverage. He'll get better as he matures, but that has no bearing on how he played yesterday, which was terrible. That said, I'm hoping the return of Vincent will help McGee become a better corner. Terrence didn't get a whole heap of safety help yesterday, and should our pass rush keep developing, they'll be a lot less pressure on individuals once we are completely healthy in the secondary.

Browns are up in arms over Lewis' grab of Shea

Quotes from Sullivan's article, 10/18/04: "...Tom Donahoe began to look smart again" "McGahee, who got the call because of Travis Henry's injured arch, was magnificent. He rushed for 111 yards on 26 carries. He had another 31 yards on three receptions, two of them shovel passes that caught Miami off-guard. He did everything but score his first regular-season touchdown, but he'll get it in time." "McGahee has proved to be a much tougher runner than anyone imagined." "Donahoe gambled on McGahee because he was a rare combination of speed and power. He's pretty tough, too." "Donahoe invested a first-round pick in McGahee because he expected him to be great. It would be foolish for the coaches to sit him for long stretches and inhibit his development." "McGahee is the future, and based on what I saw against Miami, the future has arrived." Yeah...He really ripped into both management and the players after that one. What he did do, and I believe correctly, is warned against putting off the McGahee era by starting Henry. We already know he's worried about MM's decision making as a rookie. I'm not going to argue about whether he was right about it or not, but there's certainly nothing wrong with bringing up a possible trouble-spot. That's his job. Also, what exactly was he supposed to say after last week? We beat a winless team at home by a touchdown. The offense scored 13 points. Were backflips really in order?

I liked what I saw of Losman in the preseason. I hope they're both the players we want them to be and also surrounded with what they need to succeed. I'm not a TD blaster, by the way. In fact, I think there's a lot of hypocrisy around here about the moves he's made (most of them were applauded at the time). I just tend to think differently about the 2004 draft then most.

Allow me to edit my example...If I paid $200,000 for said tickets when I could have gotten them for $2,000, that would be a poor decision, no matter what the worth of the tickets. Relating it to the draft is obviously different since we lack the information about what was offered and to who. Still, I do know that the Steelers seem to have a stud that may have been available for a similar deal, and I also know that the QB we ended up selecting was projected to go lower. Lastly, it would seem that the pick Dallas is going to get will be quite good. That being said, my personal problem with our draft, which hasn't changed since April, is that we spent a number 13 overall, a number 45 overall, and what will probably be a top 5 overall pick on the 4th WR to be drafted in 2004, and the 4th QB to be drafted in 2004. To me, that seems like a lot to pay for two guys that weren't ranked in the top 3 in their position on most boards. I also hated that we went with a WR when we needed so much help in other areas, but that's neither nere nor there. Hopefully those guys will end as ultra studs, but I'll always feel we could have gotten them (or their equivailant) for less. Just my opinion based on incomplete information.

I care. Especially if one could have gotten the same or better players for less, but it's a moot point. It's really not possible to know exactly what could have been done with which teams. I just think it's irresponsible to not care what was paid, as long as the players are good. For example, I'd really love to see the Bills win a Super Bowl in person, but despite how great it may be, I wouldn't pay $200,000 a ticket to be there.

OK...Then I'd say he's both...and I thank you as well.

I would guess that depends on whether he's writing an opinion piece or not.

Alas, I am not one of the few...And I imagine most of those given such a gift get little else done. Nay, I'm also not Jerry. It wouldn't shock me if he lurked around here, though.

I think Losman will be a very good QB. I also think we overpaid (Dallas) for him.

I can understand how some could perceive him as arrogant. Since we're on the subject, I'd dare to say that Jim Kelly was also arrogant and it made him better. To say Sullivan enjoys losing is just childish. Perhaps Buffalo's troubles have made his articles easier to write or more controversial (things that one could argue would help his career,) but to say he enjoys the team he covers being a loser is dumb. In fact, if he's as critical during winning campaigns as you maintain, what difference would it make...He'd still write the same article. What Sullivan seems to not like is stupidity...Whether it's talented players doing stupid things, or management making moves that, in his opinion, hurt the team's chances. Obviously, you don't agree with him. Ok, but I do, and I think it's unfair to make assumptions about his wanting a winning football team in Buffalo or not.

So...You'd rather Sullivan wrote about what he saw in his imagination? What would your column have looked like today?

Yes, I am familiar with those days and much of that writing. The columns he wrote back then were nothing like those of today (unless you're speaking of day-after Super Bowl entries). Of course he brought up negatives back then, but nothing like the scathing criticisms we see on a typical Monday now. Many of his columns were praise-laden with a mention here or there about a way the Bills could get better. What's wrong with that? To say he "focused" on the negatives back then is crazy. He simply pointed out holes in very good teams that, perhaps you'll remember, never won the big one.

Reading Sullivan's column on a Monday is one of the few things that has given me pleasure during this train wreck of a season. It's nice to see the voice of reason and (gasp!) criticism of a team that is terrible not have to deal with the censure that similarly minded posts often have to on this board. Sullivan calls them as he sees them. What I want to know is what you're seeing to defend the last 4 years of Bills football.

Doesn't 9-3 put us at 9-7, not 10-6?

Yes...You misinterpret my "souring" on the draft pick for the 2004 Buffalo Bills with "souring" on Lee Evans as a football player. My feelings have nothing to do with what kind of football player he is. If he is going to be used the way he has been thus far, then I think (even moreso than I did back in the Spring) that pick should have been used on an impact player at another position.

Actually at the time, I was ok with the Evans pick (though not thrilled) and furious about the JP pick. It was frustrating to me that we sold future picks for the 4th WR and the 4th QB taken when there was so many other positions in dire need of help. Looking back, I'm still hoping Evans pans out, but that pick is souring quickly on me. JP? Well, I liked what I saw in the preseason, but who knows...You've got a rookie scrambling QB that broke his leg a few weeks into his career. Will he be timid? Will he be as fast...as agile? So much has gone wrong already that nothing would shock me anymore. If they can somehow right this ship, I will give MM and whichever players are most responsible (it'll take almost all of them) credit for having huge sacks.

If they had money onm the game, they still lost. The spread was OAK -3.5

The way we've picked lately...I'd rather have the points.

Quality addition by the female RA...I imagine she's a frumpy tyrant who never got an invite to the party.

I really wish the NFL would have kept their mouth shut about this...All it has done (to me personally, anyway) is make me more angry. There is no recourse, so basically the NFL is just saying "We screwed you again. Have a nice day." Why? Why does this need to be said? People definately thought we got somewhat boned Sunday, but we were ok with it because the Henry/goalline play wasn't challenged by us. The holding on the punt return was described as difficult to find, but no one really said it was flat out wrong. Most fans (and sportscasters) ended up agreeing that the officials made the right call on the safety play. Now we get to have fresh wounds. Great...Thanks NFL. Why don't you go kick some cats or steal some baby's candy now.