SageAgainstTheMachine

Yeah, I'd be game for anything involving us acquiring Winslow. Minor personality issues aside (really, all he ever did was say some stupid stuff in college) he might very well be the most talented TE in the game. Offensively speaking, he's one of those great WR/TE hybrids in the passing game and he can also block. As far as Anderson is concerned, he has shown promise but his 28 INTs in about 1.5 seasons as a starter is pretty scary. On top of that, his career completion percentage is just 54%. Right now, I'd put Trent a level above him. And no, I'm not opposed to Trent having a little competition and Anderson could provide that. I'm definitely not 100% sold on Trent, but from what I've heard Jauron and the rest of the team are sold on him. That's really all that counts. In summation, I'd rather see a veteran backup than Anderson, but if Winslow is involved we should sign on the dotted line ASAP.

I don't happen to believe in the afterlife, but if there IS an afterlife I sure as hell hope it doesn't involve sticking around my house for hundreds of years.

After last season, Michael Turner gets the title of best goal-line back, but Marshawn is great in the redzone too.

Since we're posting live streaming rock stations, here is the one I work for... http://wvbr.com/

I'm confident that Kellen Clemens can live up to the INT numbers, and without throwing any of those pesky touchdowns either.

It depends on which statistics you look at. Most of his records are based on longetivity (not that there's anything wrong with that). My one knock on him will always be that he never used his experience to make better decisions as his career went on. In fact, it seemed like his decision making got worse as time went on...not something you'd expect from a veteran. Besides that, yes, he IS a warrior and one of the best QBs ever. Favre is one guy you could never call soft. I don't think that most people understand the sheer magnitude of starting that many consecutive games.

I won't believe it 'til it's Opening Day and he isn't on a football field somewhere.

Honestly, I'd trade in all the fine cuisine in the world for some pizza, wings, franks (at a ball game), and beer. Of course, I'd probably be dead by the age of 25 on that diet, but whatevskies.

And Doritos...lots and lots of Doritos.

Johann Pachelbel - Canon in D It really is the closest to a one-hit wonder that you'll find in classical musical.

That's right. Do you think it's a coincidence that Fred-ex started running with the same sort of hunger toward the end of the season (absolute MONSTER in the new england game)?

I just use my shank from the old days in the joint.

Schizophrenia...better than dining alone.

Ah, well I hope you didn't have fish twice.

So much for decriminalizing it...

One thing I've noticed is that he develops his own little theories (for example, he seems to think that punting should be avoided at all costs when it's 4th and short). When a coach decides to punt and it ultimately hurts the team, he brags about his theory being correct. However, he conveniently ignores it when the coach elects to go for 4th down and fails. I never said he was a bad writer, he just writes with a "Listen up! I know more than you" tone.

A severe hit to our cap space AND a distracting quarterback controversy?!?!?! Where do we sign up? I'm just messin, but seriously we can get plenty of backup quarterbacks as good as Anderson without having to pay nearly as much. He was a one hit wonder.

If his play never justifies his draft placement, then that's the FO's fault, not Whitner's.

I thought he was from New Jersey.

I don't know about that. Lynch is tough, and I think Jacobs is just plain old big. He actually goes down at first contact more than you would think, and he doesn't seem to have the ability to break through a pile. However, he is too big for a solo tackler, which is why he gains so many yards in open space. If he can get to the second level of the defense (requiring a hole of course), that's when he starts bruising guys and breaking tackles.

Trying to rank running backs is just ridiculous, and it's certainly the one position where you can't base things on statistics. If an offensive line doesn't create any holes, the best RB in the history of the NFL couldn't pick up 4.0 yards per carry. On the flip side, an O-line that does nothing but create monstrous holes can turn a horrible RB into a statistical beast and a pro bowler. I'm convinced that Shaun Alexander was never anything better than average. In Alexander's record breaking year, he ran for over half of his touchdowns without ever getting touched. That's the offensive line. Walter Jones was more important to that team than Alexander ever was. To say that Marshawn is between the 13th and 17th best running backs is just so utterly laughable. How could you possibly know that if you don't watch every running back and the holes that are created for him? What if the Bills pick up a beastly FB and suddenly Marshawn is running for 4.7 yards per carry. Did Marshawn suddenly become a better running back? Is he in the "top 5" if that happens? For some reason (I think fantasy football has something to do with it), we love to rank players. In my opinion, running back is the least rank-able. I know that Marshawn is a strong running back, he's an intense running back and he's one of the few guys on the field that actually gives a damn on every single play. That's good enough for me.

I'd say the Top Gun volleyball scene is an unforgiveable crime.

Has Tom Cruise ever actually done anything bad? He's got this reputation for being someone despicable, but I can't think of anything he's done wrong.

There are so many freakin wet blankets on these boards. Certain people just approach everything related to the Bills with negativity and I suspect many of them have forgotten that football is supposed to be a fun thing.

I think the comparison was involved more with the mythological foundation of the church, and less about the results.