thurst44

Yes, I got you, and even sort of agreed with you. It's just that it's too fitting a word for the man that I wish it weren't such a psychopath who used it, and wish we didn't have a president whose tremendous lexicon stretches to reach quadruple digits. That being said, it is a bit unseemly to seem to be siding with Kim Jong-un by using the arcane word he brought to our attention. So, we agree, and let's move on. We're both kind of arguing for stupid, nitpicky points now.

There's a BIG difference between employers having a right to fire employees and the President, the most powerful man in the country, calling for a private entity to fire its employees for having the temerity to criticize him. I'm really not trying to be a jerk here, but can you really not see the difference? A leader who wants to exact revenge on those who criticize him is a weak leader, something that's very dangerous to our democracy.

As much as I despise Trump, and did so decades before I had much of a hint of his politics (save for the whole kill the {eventually exonerated} Central Park Five full page ad), he's still yet to resort to murdering his enemies and we can presumably vote him out if we'd like in 2020, if he is still the President. Kim is a lunatic dictator with absolute power and nuclear weapons.

Dotard is an English word (an arcane one, but definitely our language). Maybe we should be more concerned that a whack job North Korean dictator has a better grasp of the English language than our big league leader does, but that may just be the writer/editor in me. Even a mass-murdering clock...no, Kim Jong-un doesn't deserve the normalizing of that joke. All that being said, yeah, we probably shouldn't be running with that one, when there's a ton of other options to use to diss the man.

I'd usually agree (and generally hold my tongue on it despite being one of those politically effusive a-hols) except when the President calls NFL players "sons of b's" and our star RB returns volley by calling him a name we can't write here (in many variations, apparently), what's a poster to do? The other day, one of the ESPN or NFL Network talking heads (i think it may have been Nate Burleson) made the point that these days, you can't really talk sports without talking politics. They're just intertwined. Should they pretend that the President didn't say anything about the NFL on an opinion show? This is about a comment our star player made after the President attacked players of his sport. How do we not discuss it? The team themselves is having a special meeting the day before a vital home game.

And we know, because he always tells us so. Bigly! "God blessed America for me...." To take it back to football: hopefully, someone tells Shady the Denver defense is all Trumpites and lets him loose. Three TDs will start the impeachment proceedings!

B-I-N-G-O. To quote Mike Birbiglia, "and that's why we're all gonna die."

This comment makes me deliriously happy and feel like there's hope for humanity. Thanks Kelly!

You know what really gets my goat...when reality show celebrities and hosts tell me what to think or get involved in politics! Oh, wait...

We also should remember that they started 3-1 last year and look how that worked out.

After Week 6 last year, they were into the top ten (8 on espn). I'm pretty sure they made top 3 during either the quick start of 2008 or 2011. http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17813507/nfl-2016-week-7-power-rankings-new-england-patriots-minnesota-vikings-seattle-seahawks

- They showed they could close out the game - They dominated the Jets d-line which is probably in the top half if not top 10 of defensive lines - They limited stupid plays and penalties - Humber appears more than adequate - Bilal Powell and Matt Forte are not terrible and they only had two runs over 5 yards all game This win doesn't prove anything, but it offers some hope for a game on the road against a likely middle-of-the-pack to good team. The idea that teams and players don't learn things from week to week, or can't build on efforts, is ridiculous.

No, Bowles is notorious for not going for it on 4th down at that juncture. WFAN callers will go nuts calling for his head, as they have so many times before. The only difference will be that there won't be any Craig Carton obnoxiously piling on. Yes, you might be a bit spoiled considering that if they did this every week, they would have the third highest team rushing total in NFL history and would be just the third team to eclipse 3000 yards. And do Tyrod's rushing yards not count. He had nearly 600 of them last year.

I wouldn't say easily. It's any given sunday and all, but we are a markedly better team than the Jets going in with a better seeming attitude at home. It could happen. McCown could catch a couple breaks on way to a career day. Their defense could get it together and hold it close enough that a freak play could decide it. My Billsy scenario is that the defense dominates at an absurd level to the degree of not allowing them a first down...until the 4th quarter when it is 9-3 Bills, and McCown hits a TD for the first first down to win the game on the final play. However, to say it could EASILY happen...no. They are an almost double-digit favorite for a reason. So, let's go Bills!

Dareus 10 sacks and in the talk for DPOY. People have forgotten that despite his antics (most of which are minor key), when he plays, he is very good. My real one prediction (just thought Dareus deserved some defense, at least for his on-field play): McCoy well over 2000 yards from scrimmage, leading the league (even David Johnson).

I had a dream where this was the score, so I'll go with this one too. We were tied 13-13 early in the 4th until Shareece Wright forced a fumble and ran it in for a TD. Then McCoy, who had been stifled until that point, broke off a 74-yard TD run. I forget how the third score happened. I'll add that how we got the original 13 was a bit ridiculous -- 3 FGs and 2 safeties.

This! And in these days a diversion is needed more than ever. Even if the Bills do turn out to be awful this year, I can spend Sundays being depressed about something that ultimately is, as Promo said, a diversion. If we do wind up 2-14 as I sincerely doubt we will, it'll be frustrating, but then we can get excited about the draft and off-season diversions.

Well, first off, I'm going to still follow for a lot of the similar reasons to what you said. The Bills are a connection to friends and family and a cathartic experience that shakes off the good and bad of the day-to-day. Also, as much as we joke about "the process" with this particular leadership crew, I'm also more interested in the process, the development, the stories. If you tie it all to a championship-or-die mentality, then sheer mathematics say most fans are going to be miserable most decades. That said, I reject the premise that has seemed to balloon in the past couple weeks that this is an especially bad team. There's certainly some chaos and some odd experiments which could easily backfire. While I can see an intriguing logic, I hate losing Sammy Watkins, Ronald Darby, and Reggie Ragland -- three players I wanted for the Bills pre-draft. However, all the tanking talk feels like a fundamental misreading of what's happening. From my vantage, they seem to be focusing on the future, while putting together a team that will not fall apart this year. I suspect they might have more faith in Tyrod Taylor than people think, and maybe instead of fawning after potentialities, most of whom are likely to never amount to all that much in the NFL despite the hype (there are more Ryan Leafs than Peyton Mannings), I'd rather root for Taylor to take another step forward so that we enter the draft as a team on the move who has a chance to build a powerhouse through the draft. If he regresses, then we cross that then. However, I really do hope that they do not do any huge trade-up to try to get a QB. Historically, that has been disastrous. Although, even if Taylor has an extraordinary year, I'd love them to pick a QB with one of their two first rounders next year, if one of the promising ones fall next year (and i NEVER want them to pick a qb high if they don't have a top two pick -- but this draft with the extra pick and many prospects).

According to Cover1, Dawkins was one of the better offensive players in the pre-season, but I do agree that it's not a bad idea to let him ease in.

Well, coaches, and people who evaluate this stuff has said he's good on ST. It's the same as the person (may or may not have been you) who said that he's been terrible in limited action at safety. I've never particularly noticed him as bad, and I have to wonder whether that person watched every play of Colt and deduced that, saw him make one bad play and concluded he was bad, or was just conjecturing. My money would be on one of the last two. He was cut b/c he wasn't vital enough to keep when they needed to drop someone. However, as with the people they put on the PS, they apparently did want him back if they could swing it. I have trouble with anyone seeing this as worse than neutral.

1. Tyrod Taylor (while I'm pro-Tyrod -- or at least he's earned his chance with what he's done the past two years, it's not that high a bar to clear) 2. Flutie (last qb to get them to the playoffs) 3. Fitzpatrick (a real best of times, worst of times qb) 4. Bledsoe (he was mediocre-at-best by the time he got to Buffalo) 5. Orton (we're really just getting to default at this point) 6. EJ Manuel (he was really more meh than terrible) 7. Trent Edwards (he had a smattering of good games, even if he ultimately fell completely apart) Beyond this, shrug...

Plus, I don't know how many times this needs to be said, but Matthews has 200 more yards than Watkins over the same amt of time. He may not be a superstar and certainly Watkins has more potential, but to call him ballast is lazy journalism trying to shoehorn the facts into their own narrative.

I didn't love the trade either, but Matthews has been more productive in the league, and don't look now, but Gaines was the best CB in pre-season. They didn't just get picks. Also, to imply (as the article does) that they are going to be 5 games or so worse b/c of loss of a player who had less than 500 yards last year, and with whom they were 2-6 when he played, seems a bit strange. Where for the better? I'd say coaching is the main thing, but I would also argue the talent level didn't get particularly worse. Their safeties were terrible last year. Hyde and Poyer look great. The only change in the running game is back-up and it has seemed whoever you plug in once TT and McCoy have worn the D out will get their yards. The D-Line is still deep, the O-Line could be better then we think (especially if Glenn is back and Dawkins and Groy get significant playing time). Cornerback is hard to tell as Gilmore was feast-or-famine last year and Darby was a sophomore-slumping trainwreck. White looks like a find and there's a lot of solid role players. As for WRs, by week three last year we were picking people off the scrapheap anyway. Matthews has produced more than Watkins since coming in the league (even if it won't likely end that way when careers are through), Zay Jones looks good, and really, I suspect we will hardly be using more than one or two of them any game. Heck, if we're able to stop the run this year (and the results looked good for that all pre-season, but then that's pre-season), that should be worth a few games this year.

This same weird thing has happened in past years where the national press just decides to keep topping themselves as to how bad the Bills will be, and there's no real logic to it. Maybe they will be 31st, but to say definitively that this team is going to be worse than all but one of the Jets, Rams, Bears, 49ers, and Jags (and i could also see the Bengals, Colts, Saints, and Chargers being pretty bad) is just ludicrous. I just don't see this as a historically bad team, but then again, this happened three years ago and that was about as close as they got to the playoffs.

My least favorite opener is recent, and it's simply because I went to the game on opponent's turf -- the one the Jets won 48-28. It was actually mostly fun as the Jets fans were a bit disarmed by our group of self-deprecating Bills fans, but still a pretty dreadful game of the worst sort. Beyond being so damn sloppy and Fitz having one of the worst games of his career, there was the brief tease that they would come back. Also, the decision to walk drunk along the ugly rt. 120 corridor after a loss to get to the nearest civilization was not all that joyful of a choice. The opening day loss, also to the Jets, after the four Super Bowls was also pretty dreadful. Watched the game at some Tonawanda bar and remember on one of the first plays yelling about grounding, and someone behind me, with viciousness, yelling that "oh, he was in the pocket you idiot." And then we lost 23-3. My favorite win is pretty easy, and has been mentioned. It's hard to beat (at least as it happened) the 31-0, Lawyer Milloy Shares His Secrets game. I watched it at McFadden's, the Bills Backer bar in NYC, and it felt like an exorcism. We were headed back to prominence and the New England dominance was done. Sigh. That season's ender has to be the worst of a bad bunch. It's almost as if Bill purposely ran the score to 31-0 to show how completely that early start had been erased. May next Sunday be just as boring!