ESPN Power Rankings

[billsfan89]

Maybe he had the cheaters at #6 but because they still have Tom Terrific he dropped them 3 places.

Or ... he has them at #9 and thinks they will cheat themselves to #6?

 

Maybe the Pats* lack of honor (Or the fact they had stopped cheating) puts them behind the Jets.

[bartshan-83]

Actually it looks like Clayton wrote the one liners for the Jets and Pats (and thought the Jets would challenge the Pats for the division) but he alone did not rank the teams. In other words, the one-liners are Clayton's, the ranking is not.

I'm aware of that, Deano. My point was far be it for ESPN to actually release something that makes sense when the final product is assembled. I was just poking fun at Clayton and ESPN...it's not that serious.

 

Shhhhh too much facts for the OP. I saw the original post and link, and just had to laugh my ass off at the generally stupidity of the post.

You're actually in charge of educating children?

[justnzane]

You're actually in charge of educating children?

 

Read the bottom, it was pretty freaking obvious that:

A: Clayton ranked the Patsies* over the Jests

B: The other guys are on the Jests bandwagon

 

Bart, I know you are an intelligent person, but come on, this isn't your best and brightest post. We all say and do stupid ****.

[Beerball]

Read the bottom, it was pretty freaking obvious that:

A: Clayton ranked the Patsies* over the Jests

B: The other guys are on the Jests bandwagon

we still hates him and want him

 

 

(this should in no way be construed as a death threat agains John Clayton or any other living person)

[The Dean]

I'm aware of that, Deano. My point was far be it for ESPN to actually release something that makes sense when the final product is assembled. I was just poking fun at Clayton and ESPN...it's not that serious.

 

 

It seemed like you were blaming Clayton for contradicting himself, which he did not.

 

Actually after going back and re-reading it, it still seems that way.

 

I don't much like Clayton either. But this makes you seem like you don't know what is going on more than it reflects poorly on Clayton.

[justnzane]

we still hates him and want him

 

 

(this should in no way be construed as a death threat agains John Clayton or any other living person)

 

 

 

Clayton is a pencil-neck dweeb who probably got injured in his first practice of playing football

[The Big Cat]

Come on BillsVet...

 

if the Bills won 5 more games over the last 4 years (that's 1.25 games a year), they would have been .500

for 4 years straight. So, don't make it sound like FightClub is crazy. 7-9 IS close to .500. It's depressing that

we are talking about being close to .500, but nevertheless it's not an outrageous statement.

 

And you make it sound like Chan has not been around football at all for 11 years. Sure it's been that long since

he was a head coach in the NFL, but he has been an offensive coordinator since then in the NFL and he was a head

coach as recently as 2007 (at Georgia).

 

Plus, we were 6-10 last year, not 5-11.

 

I'm not denying the questions that you and we have all raised (QB, LT, OLB, new schemes, pass rush), but don't try

to purposely paint the picture darker than it is.

 

 

 

And as far as ESPN and anyone who agrees with that ranking, over the last 10 years the 31st place teams have

averaged 2.9 wins a season. I just can't see how we will fall to only 3 wins with basically the same players now

healthy and with more experience (+ rookies and FAs) but better coaching. Yes, we have a lot of question marks

including the coaching (because we haven't seen any games yet), but are we really going to lose 3 or 4 more

games than last year with that mess of a season we had?

 

Pessimistic at all costs, regardless of what the empirical evidence is. I'd say three straight seasons at 7-9 is about as close to "close to .500" as you could ever hope to be.

 

Thanks for a response much more balanced the one I was cooking up, and thanks for the hilarious avatar of Buddy. Buddy, we're headed to the Walden Galeria, it's time to get some GLAMOR SHOTS!

[mattsox]

John Clayton knows bad football when he sees it. Bills are a bad team, they need a lot of work in order to be competitive. 2-14 might be an understatement for this mess.

[Cookiemonster]

Where is Sean Salsbury when you need him?

[The Dean]

Where is Sean Salsbury when you need him?

 

 

I actually dislike him more than I do Clayton.

[bartshan-83]

Read the bottom, it was pretty freaking obvious that:

A: Clayton ranked the Patsies* over the Jests

B: The other guys are on the Jests bandwagon

 

Bart, I know you are an intelligent person, but come on, this isn't your best and brightest post. We all say and do stupid ****.

It seemed like you were blaming Clayton for contradicting himself, which he did not.

 

Actually after going back and re-reading it, it still seems that way.

 

I don't much like Clayton either. But this makes you seem like you don't know what is going on more than it reflects poorly on Clayton.

 

You're both right. Clayton didn't contradict himself. The article he contributed to and put his name on was created in such a way as to turn his contribution into seemingly contradictory statements. I grossly misconstrued the situation and I apologize for the original post.

 

Mea culpa.

[Cookiemonster]

I actually dislike him more than I do Clayton.

It's a toss up for me, but I used to love watching those two mix it up!

They had such a health disdain for one another.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Where is Sean Salsbury when you need him?

 

 

Molesting an intern?