SageAgainstTheMachine

Interesting. One counter-example is Michael Turner, who went directly from light use in SD to heavy use in ATL without any ill effects. But obviously there are exceptions to everything. EDIT: Upon further review, Turner did suffer an injury the season after advancing to 376 carries, but he was still effective in the 11 games he started, averaging 4.9 YPC.

That's a good point about the receptions. I don't have enough time right now to dig into the stats, but I read once that Eric Dickerson is the only RB to carry the ball 400 times and not get seriously injured or see a gigantic dropoff in play the next season. Two recent examples of overused backs are Larry Johnson who had 416 carries in his last season of competency and Shaun Alexander who had 370.

Gee, ya think? It may be a business, but I don't want to root for a team that treats its best players like **** in return for wins.

I'm not worried about Freddie's touches. At his current pace, he'll rack up about 300 carries. 400 is dangerous territory where RBs get injured more often than not. 300 is just right.

I agree with your premise that getting swept by the Jets effectively !@#$s us. I disagree with your premise that losing next week's matchup lowers our chances of beating them Week 12 in New Jersey. The Bills are good enough to beat the Jets on the road regardless of Week 9's results.

More accurately, we destroyed a team that we should have beaten. I would have reacted like this to a ho-hum 23-13 win, but we killed 'em. In fact, we've played 2 bad teams this year (and KC is on a 3-game win streak now so who knows) and we have destroyed both of those teams. That's what really good teams do.

Among the players that we were leching after back then, and it comes up somewhere in that thread, was Laveranues Coles. I remember the board throwing a conniption fit when he signed elsewhere. Then he basically never did anything again.

Umm, no. That was about as obvious as it gets, especially seeing as he said "they will come up with others".

I'm game for that prediction. I'm sick of these wimpy fans who are too busy pissing down their legs over when the other shoe is going to drop to notice that the Bills are actually playing good football.

Objectively, the Bills have been the best team in the AFC East through 7 games. They have scored more points than the Patriots and surrendered fewer. You could argue the Bills have been the best team in the AFC in 2011. Now, I'm not saying that any of this guarantees future results, but 5-2 is a damn good record relative to the Bills' strength of schedule.

Absolutely.

You imply, I infer. Just seemed like an odd statement haha.

No way are we home 'dogs after 23-0.

Are those mutually exclusive?

I'll take that as a compliment.

It's prudent at this point to tell you that I and the OP were being sarcastic and lampooning a prior thread about how the Bills' penchant for getting turnovers meant that our winning was "unsustainable."

Hate to say it, but I agree. I would have felt much more comfortable if we had allowed somewhere around 10-13 points instead of shutting them out. Between the comebacks and all the turnovers and now a shutout, I wish the Bills could get non-flukish wins. Can't they just be average?

Zombies would be devoured by maggots.

Occupy WalMart.

That's just 1.5 million more self empowered farmers, though. Or something.

*Hugs*

Washington fans think that Beck is where it's at, but I think he's a loser. I sea change and mutations in the way that the Redskins have played since the golden age of Week 1 and I now believe that they're a lost cause. Yeah, I think Washington sucks but it makes me kinda nervous to say so.

If I'm making millions upon millions of dollars, but I think that there's even more money potentially on the table, you can bet your ass that I'm going to try to get it.

My interpretation was that Chef was criticizing the Fox Network for their bizarre fascination with Nolan Ryan, not the man himself. But I could be wrong.

Not to even mention the baffling decision to pitch Matt Harrison in Game 7. The decision to start Derek Holland should have been made immediately after he left the mound in game 4. The kid looked pressure in the face and pissed all over it, not unlike Freese, and you don't put the ball back in his hand? C'mon Ron.