VOR

I can't. Favre isn't Parcells' type of QB. And I can't see Favre wanting to join (at best one of) the worst team in the league.

How do you figure?

I asked you for an answer; ANY answer. I didn't ask for a "deep" one. That was your qualification. It was a simple question. And spare me the "personal taunting" whining/hypocrisy. Like I said, if we took a poll, we'd see who the real joke is around here. Wait, minute! I said the team overachieved, you say the team overachieved, yet I'll look right past all that and...what? Yes, please go ahead and get some sleep. Hopefully it will help.

Except that while he's unproven, he's not following a legend who would like to return to the team. Otherwise it's completely the same.

He should demand a trade. He's in a no-win situation and will likely end-up being a failure.

Psychology has a huge effect on a game, regardless of what happened the week prior. Both are shocking events that affected the players, but they were limited to one game, and Everett's paralysis happened prior to the game, I wouldn't be using it as an excuse for that game alone. And I doubt the Broncos prepared during the week to win the game on a last second FG. Then there is no guarantee that other teams improved themselves either. Or that the teams who were good last year won't get worse over the off-season.

No offense taken. And my response would be the one I gave krazy. A player getting paralyzed isn't your average injury because it happens so rarely, and it totally changes your life. No one can give you guarantees. I knew prior to last season that failing to address the #2 WR spot in ANY manner would come back to bite them. The same goes for not replacing Clements, although Greer stepped-up to a large extent. That's why I like to say "time will tell."

LOL! Should we take a vote on which one of us people take more seriously? If you say so. A teammate getting paralyzed during a game (with no one knowing if he'd ever walk again, at that time), while not exactly the same as a teammate getting killed prior to a game, has a profound psychological effect. It's no surprise though that you either can't appreciate it, or choose to refute it.

The Bills can always franchise Evans. Peters OTOH will likely hold-out until Edwards gets injured.

Going by that logic, if the Bills let Evans walk, again how far can the offense fall without him?

To start off, if you want to blame the Redskins losing on Sean Taylor's death, I can just as easily blame the Broncos loss on Kevin Everett getting paralyzed. And I agree that the offense was horrible, for the reasons I mentioned, while the defense got pushed around by the better offenses. Again the Bills addressed many of the problem areas over the off-season. But this will be a new season with a new schedule. They play the NFC West and I can see them going 3-1 in those games, maybe even 4-0. I can also see them going 4-2 in the division, losing to the Jets and Patriots (they'll probably win the division early and rest their starters in the season finale) once. I also see them beating the Raiders, Cardinals, and Chiefs. They might be able to sneak a win over the Broncos, who have had a habit of fading the past 2 seasons, but winning in Denver is tough. So I can see 10-6 to 11-5.

So then, since there IS a cap, why does Upshaw still support it, if it supposedly hurts the veteran players?

Well since you at least answered the question and it doesn't appear krazykat will, I'll respond. The question wasn't meant to ask how individual players performed, but whether, given the expectations and then what transpired, did the team perform better, worse, or the same as you would have thought. My opinion is that given the problems on offense, from Fairchild, to no real #2 WR, to a rookie QB and RB, to the injuries on defense, to Kevin Everett's injury, the Bills overperformed. That's why I think that replacing Fairchild (who at least is saying the right things), having a real #2 prospect in Hardy, Edwards and Lynch no longer being rookies, and the additions on defense and getting injured players back, not to mention the easier schedule (you can only play the schedule you're given), that the Bills will do a better than 7-9. My guesstimate is 10-6. Again assuming a rash of injuries doesn't hit again.

What other injuries did the Ravens have, other than Pryce, whose absence seemingly single-handedly destroyed their defense and season? And a rookie head coach also cannot be discounted (I forgot to mention that). But I did say that I could see them making the playoffs. So what's the problem here?

Probably. Tucker was with the Bills from 2003-2004, and 2004 was JP's rookie season.

After the first round, the money drops-off precipitously. I was figuring Hardy would get approximately a 4-year $4M deal with about half guaranteed. And Kelly's deal makes me more confident of that.

I thought so as well. But the difference between 2006 and 2007 was that LDE/LDT Trevor Pryce missed most of the season in 2007, and the defense allowed 24 PPG, almost double what they allowed in 2006. And offense was never their strong suit in 2006, so having a rookie QB might not change much there. But expecting Pryce, who will be 33 before the season starts, to be totally healthy all season, and for Flacco to avoid making costly rookie mistakes, is asking a lot. Still it's not as far-fetched as the Rams.

Yes. It wouldn't have surprised me to learn it was a "breaking news" piece interrupting shows earlier in the day.

How can a team that started the season off 0-8, after going 2-2 in the pre-season, be deemed to be "primed to make a run at the Super Bowl -- until virtually every player in the starting lineup got injured?" Is he talking about them all getting injured in training camp?

To quote Emilio Estevez' character from The Breakfast Club, "Just answer the question, Claire!"

310 is the weight that gets listed so that he can make his target-weight bonus.

Well for starters, the Bills new regime went out and signed Tripplett to a decent-sized be their 3-tech DT in the cover-2, with which he was familiar since he played in it in Indy. So experience and money likely played a factor. McCargo broke his foot his rookie year and had another surgery over the off-season, and missed significant time prior to training camp, so he was behind. Conditioning might have also been a factor. Since he's been healthy all off-season this time, there should be a noticeable improvement. As for replacing Tripplett mid-season, I can't answer for certain why they didn't make McCargo the starter. Again maybe it was conditioning? Maybe that with the rotation they employed, it wouldn't have made a real difference.

Okay, let me see if I can put them all together. The Bills had little talent last year and Jauron and co. suck, as does the front office. So despite this and all the injuries, 7-9 should be considered a good record for the team, right? There can be no other conclusion. But the kicker is that the Bills did nothing to improve the team over the off-season, and will be lucky to avoid being swept by every AFC East team, who "improved more" than the Bills. We should be happy if the Bills have a 7-9 record again. Is that it?

I'd say the guy they released, Larry Tripplett, was the major part of the problem.

I'll wait.