MDH

Hah, according to that list Culpepper just got replaced as the starting QB by the 4th worst QB of all time.

And finally won one with Owens out with an injury. Those Eagles sure to look bad this year without TO!

I'm not sure what the big deal is here. If the "experts" want to end up with decent records at the end of the season the smart pick is to take the home team when two mediocre/bad teams play one another. You'll be right more often than not.

Is that the same Kiwaukee Thomas that dropped two easy INTs against the Bears or does this version have better hands?

Unless someone specifically follows a team (or actually breaks down footage alla Jaws) they're really not going to have a clue how well someone is playing. For someone to take notice of a QB the QB has to be putting up lots of TDs, yards and Ws. If they're just putting up Ws they're a "caretaker" and if they're not putting up many of the three then obviously that team needs a new QB. This is how fans and media have been breaking down QB play for 25 years. I wouldn't worry too much about it. You know a hell of a lot more about the Bills QB play than some guys on Boston radio.

Not even close.

Corey Simon weighs in at roughly 300lbs. which is what most of our DTs weigh in at as well. It's really not about size, it's about production. You can have smaller guys who can do the job and you can have bigger guys that can't.

It's even worse considering that he is a raw prospect and needs lots of playing time in order to improve.

This isn't the NCAA where there's a huge disparity in the talent that teams have. Even the bad teams in the NFL are competitive with the good teams (for the most part). Winning consistently in the NFL is the product of being a good team not of having an "easy" schedule.

Well, he obviously "nos" how to golf!

Yes, Losman should play well every single week. Otherwise there are other QBs who will have a good week which people can compare him to and say, "see, so-and-so had a good week so Losman should too! After all, each situation is entirely the same and anybody who says otherwise is just making excuses!"

5. Mooreman looked good kicking the ball.

My 2.5 year old son watched part of the game yesterday with me then went back to his bedroom and proceeded to puke. I told my wife, "I don't blame him, its making me sick too."

I think Roethlisberger's deal with the devil ended after the SB win.

You're trying too hard to outthink yourself. If you try to play the matchup game each and every week you're going to miss out on points from your big guns. Roy Williams should be starting each and every week for you, no matter what the matchup says. After that it's a tricky question. Normally I'd say go with Driver but his status this week makes that iffy. It comes down to a toss up between Reggie Williams and Burress. I'd go with Burress.

You're forgetting to mention that those last two games were both at home. The Bills have been more conservative on the road and much less productive. Being at home helps an offense tremendously. If this game was in Buffalo I’d give the Bills a decent shot at winning (though I wouldn’t consider them favorites). On the road the task becomes much, much more difficult.

The state and federal governments place restrictions (called laws) on people's freedoms all the time. You could make your same argument anytime a law is passed. As always, there's a fine line between safety and freedom. Where we draw that line is what generally causes these disagreements.

I never claimed to be speaking for all bar/restraunt workers. Why do all of them need to support the ban? Again you're mixing up issues. I'm fully aware of imminent domain issues. You don't need to go to Florida to find these problems, they're happening in our own city. In Brooklyn (the borough where I live) the state is going to take away people's property in order to build the Nets new stadium. I've had a million conversations about this very issue and I'm in full agreement with you. There aren't many things more important a person's right to own property and the state should not restrict that right for frivolous causes. That being said the ban on smoking isn't the same issue. We're not talking about restricting a person's right to own property. We're talking about an employer/employ issue (I'd actually guess that most bar owners in NYC don't own the property they run their businesses out of, but I digress). If the state passes a law that states you couldn't smoke in the privacy of your own home then this might be the issue you are concerned about. But they haven't done that. I also notice that people aren't objecting to the other areas of the Clean Indoor Air Act which regulates smoking in public and work places. The law forbids smoking in all places of employment, mass transportation, educational facilities (including private colleges) and many other places as well (most of them concerning children). Why should people who work in front of computers for a living have the right to work in a smoke free environment but someone who serves food/drinks for a living shouldn't? If it's a "owner rights" issue, why don't you take issue with these other places?

Your position is identical to mine except I do think that smoking in places open to the public does affect others. The worst thing that can happen isn't that the servers are restricted; the worst thing that happens is that the person can't find any work in their chosen vocation unless they are willing to accept severe health risks down the road. Darin's 3:1 non-smoking to smoking town doesn't exist in any town that I've visited or lived in. It would be one thing if there was no way to get rid of the health risks associated with a job. However, in this instance there is something that can be done.

Why does it no surprise me that you think workers rights are a giant crock of crap. As for your town, who cares? I'm talking about NYC, the city I actually live in. Before the ban on smoking bars were able to choose if they wanted to allow smoking or not. I'm sure in the thousands upon thousands of bars in the city there might have been a few that were non-smoking but in all my time living here I never saw one.

This has nothing to do with what I prefer. I frequently smoke while I'm out drinking and enjoy doing so. I also don't mind stepping outside to do it. I did, however, serve when I was younger and totally understand the issues servers have with it. Even as a full time smoker (back then) I hated working in smoky bars for a prolonged period of time. I'm guessing it has more to do with what you prefer. You'd prefer to put your likes/dislikes in front of the rights of workers. There's no reason to hide this.

Owning property doesn't give a person the right to abuse other people's rights while on that property. The employs have the right to work in a safe environment even if the owner doesn't feel that its his duty to provide one. As for your "forced" comment, that's ridiculous. Given the choice bar/restaurant owners would all allow smoking. Why? Because they'd make more money that way. Non-smokers will go to bars that allow smoking but if given a choice smokers would never go to a non-smoking bar restaurant. So you're saying that people who choose to serve should just have to suck it up and work in an unsafe environment? One of the responsibilities of government is to ensure that workers are guaranteed safe working environments. This is the case in all work environments, be it a mine, a construction site or a restaurant. This is an instance of government actually working for the people instead of against it.

You're really stretching trying to link these two issues. The smoking ban was about protecting people's rights; those of the employs. They have to right to work as a server/bar tender without putting their health at risk. I'm of the opinion that people should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do as long as it doesn't directly impact other people. Exposing servers to smoke for 6-8 hours a day doesn't fit that description. Nobody is preventing you from smoking; you simply have to go outside to do it. To me that seems like a pretty reasonable solution. You get to smoke and they get to work without the health risks.

Only Mularkey could devise a scheme that passes the ball too much AND pisses off the team's #1 WR at the same time.

The idea of a football game is not to score a lot of points. The idea is to score more than your opponent. Sometimes that means limiting the amount of points you attempt to score (as odd as that sounds). The Bills coaching staff has been playing it close to the vest and not taking many chances with the ball (see the Bills running it three straight times from the 5 yard line last week and gaining zero yards). In doing this the staff has put the team in a position to win more games (but score fewer points). One of the reasons the Bills D has allowed so few points is that the offense is helping them out. Opposing Os have to travel the length of the field in order to score points. If you continuously make teams do that they'll rarely score more than 20 points. The Bills also try to chew away the clock, which essentially shortens the game and allows for fewer plays (and fewer points). This is a smart move if you think your team is overmatched. Sure the Bills could put up more points on the board but would it help win games? I doubt it. You'd see the O have more turnovers because they'd have to take more risks. Consequently you’d see our D allow more points. The Bills have been more than happy to simply punt the ball away and play a field position game. This generally leads to lower scoring games (by both teams). Given the game plan for the Bills I'd say the O has performed pretty well. We'll see if the coaches loosen the reigns later in the season but right now I think they're calling the games pretty well for a young team. I’d say for what they’re attempting to do they’re playing above average (though just slightly).