MDH

No NFL RB has stat lines like Johnson has without the OL being absolutely horrible. My guess is that's the main culprit behind his decline. This is also why you don't spend loads of money on RBs - the OL has more to do with it than the RB. From what little I have seen of CJ this year I have noticed him dancing around instead of hitting what little daylight he does have hard. It looks like he's trying to force the big play which usually results in negative plays.

You don't see the difference between questioning his toughness and giving him the benefit of the doubt about how he reacted to the injury? If he was always going off the field with minor injuries or always reacting to every minor nick or bruise you might have a point. But to question a guy the first time he gets injured is a bit much. Not to mention, questioning the toughness of any NFL RB who suits up and willingly runs into a group of 300lb guys who want to drive him into the ground is ludicrous. Nobody says you can't do it you just look bad by doing it. Of course, that's just my opinion man...

Later in the article: WTF

Nice try, but not nearly the same thing for a few reasons. The Pack didn't know what Favre was going to do. Every year he played the "I might retire I might come back" game. They had to protect their future and they did so by selecting a QB just in case Favre called it quites. Rodgers was also picked with a late first round pick, not top 10. Trying to land a franchise QB with the 24th pick in the draft when you're unsure of whether your current QB - who is old and nearing the end - is going to retire isn't the same thing as using the 9th pick of the draft at a RB position where you're already set for years (on a team with holes everywhere BUT RB.) Not a backup or insurance policy? What games have you been watching? Last year Spiller never got more than 5 carries in games that Jackson was healthy. In his rookie campaign he never got more than 9 carries in a game (and he averaged less than 5.) How is that not a backup or insurance policy? People have this idea that NOW Spiller is the starter and will get the bulk of the load - I don't see it. Even with Jackson out of the lineup at the end of last year and early this year Spiller has averaged only 14 carries a game (compare that to Jackson's 19 carries a game.) With Jackson back I'd imagine Spiller's carries will be in the 9-10 range with Jackson still getting most of the load with 15 or so. As for the bad pick claim - yeah, it wasn't a good one. It doesn't mean he's a bad player, he's not, he has the potential to be very good. But very good sitting on the bench or splitting time with a guy who was already on the team when they drafted him isn't good enough for the 9th pick in the draft - at least not Imo.

As if people who all speak English don't talk junk about their co-workers...

People act as though the Bills are trying to get into a BCS bowl game and that these rankings matter. I don't care if the Bills lose every single game to "good teams" and beat up only on the "bad teams" (and consequently are ranked low in these polls) as long as they make the playoffs. You know where the Giants were ranked last year in their week 16 poll by ESPN? 16th.

How effective do you think a RB can be if he comes back on a bad knee? If he's not ready they should sit him. If a RB isn't confident in his knee he's not going to perform well. Coming back too early won't help them this week or in future weeks.

Spiller is a good back but you don't spend a top 10 pick to back up your starter in case he gets injured. That's all Spiller has done so far and we're 35 games into his career. Those top picks have to see the field and they have to see the field almost immediately (starting by year 2) given how much money they make. Hell, with Spiller on the roster the Bills just redid Freddie's deal to give him more money - that's 2 years after Spiller was drafted. And even this year, once both are back healthy Spiller isn't going to do anything but split carries. Granted, the way it's played out with the injuries it's been a blessing to have two quality backs but as I said - you don't spend a top 10 pick as an insurance policy. For all those people saying, "you draft the best player available" that player does no good if he can't get on the field because the guy in front of him is better. I'd rather have had a guy who wasn't quite as good as Spiller but was better than what the Bills already had at that position and he saw the field from day one and helped the Bills improve as a team.

Totally lost on this one, I see nothing wrong with the quote. That being said, I don't need any more reason's to dislike Tom Brady than his team consistently beats the Bills. F' him.

So if they lose and fall to 2-2 the Bills should just pack in the season because they can't make the playoffs? Damn, and here I thought the other 12 games might hold some importance.

How the hell can anybody care that much about this to argue about it all week?

Maybe they can use all these fines they've collected from players and coaches and add it to the deal their offering the real officials.

If I'm going to watch a guy struggle I'd much rather it be a young guy who can get better and not an old vet.

I'd assume that the moment he does dress Thigpen is gone the same week. The two things will coincide.

Have to say I'm really disappointed in the "not safe for work" tag you put on that link. When I saw it I (sadly) got excited and thought, "really!!!!" only to open it to find some butt cleavage. Come on, "not safe for work" is a euphemism for "naked." At least in my book...

I'm surprised this doesn't happen more often. I don't know how many times I've been waiting for a cab in NYC and had somebody try and upstream me. It's pretty frustrating and unless you just want to the guy who let's people walk all over you something has to be said or done. I usually just walk upstream of the person and while walking by say out loud, "I don't think so." That tends to work though I have had words with people over it.

Even if they didn't see it live what they did see should have made it clear that it was an INT. I don't even see how it's close. By the time the refs got there Jennings had the ball to his chest while Tate was staring at the number 43 on Jennings back while reaching around trying to get a grasp on the ball pressed against Jennings chest. Tate was looking at Jennings back! How could this be considered anything but an INT?

Have you ever seen an official stop the clock AND THEN call a TD? I've never seen it. Stopping the clock in that situation is a pre-curser to calling a touchback because of an INT.

It looked like the official who called it a TD looked at the other official to make the call, saw him raise his hands up and thought he was going to confirm his call. Of course the other official was raising his hands to call it a touchback which left the one official with his hands up calling it a TD. That's just what it looked like to me on the replay.

That's my thought as well. Just as much BS.

Passing yards are low because his attempts are low. He's 27th in passing yards He's 26th in passing attempts Seems to be right in line to me. What's out of line are the number of TDs he has considering his limited pass attempts...

My preference - if both are healthy - is for Freddie to get 16-20 touches a game and CJ to get around 10. These numbers, obviously, can be altered if one is having more success but I agree, I'm not sure CJs body can take a full season of carries if he's carrying the load.

I really don't see what the big issue people have with this is. It's a play in an NFL game. What gives the offense the right to say the D can't hit them on a snap? Are people really getting up upset because there are competitors who fight until the end of the game to win instead of just conceding? They should be fighting until the end. If the league doesn't want contact in these situations then they should make a rule stating the offense doesn't need to snap the ball - the game just ends with time on the clock. Until such a rule is put into place then the D trying their best to win the game is a legitimate move. The problem people should have is that just giving up on the field has become acceptable. If it's a close game and there's time on the clock it doesn't matter what the odds are- you try to win the game (as long as it's within the rules.) If the odds of winning are better with your team playing until the end (which they are) you do it - no matter how minuscule those odds are. As for the injury argument, If both teams are prepared for contact the chances of an injury here are no greater than on any other play.

We'll see how solid it is. Their entire D was predicated on Revis shutting down his side of the field. Revis was the single most important player on their team. I don't think you can overstate how much this hurts the Jets' chances.

I don't think it will define their season - the finish will. The next 6 games are a brutal stretch. Just brutal. NE twice, @SF, @Arizona, @Hou and the Titans as the lone "easy" game. If the Bills can manage 2 wins I'd think they still have a decent shot at the playoffs. They'd be 4-5 heading into an extremely light schedule. I could see them finishing 10-6 even if they were 4-5 at that point. If they can manage to split these next 6 games I'd be ecstatic.