Delete This Account

what, Bills nation has moved on from blaming the officials? jw

ummm, might it be that the tight ends are being asked to help in pass-blocking a little more against teams that have a pass-rush (Philadelphia and Giants) and given the banged-up state of the Bills offensive line? jw

here's the silly thing about the trade "rumors." some fancy haired guy goes on TV and says, essentially, "here's what i'm thinking about what trades might make sense, though i really don't have any inside knowledge on these moves ever happening. all i'm doing is throwing some names out of players who might fit well on other teams at this point in the season, so don't hold me to it." and all of a sudden twitter nation lights up to the point where said nation, without knowledge of where these "rumors" began, begin to send tweets to said fancy-haired guy wondering if he's got any inside information about all this buzz about some player coming to their team. and so the cat begins to chase its tail in this captivating, quixotic and endless dance of self-involved, devoid of fact speculation that once again proves that in this wonderful age of style over substance communication the medium still remains the message. jw

c'mon. there's so much rampant green speculation here, that there's no way you could make any conclusions here. i'm surprise someone had the nerve to post this on the interwebs in the first place. jw

stop it please. it's a cliche. cliche's are generally old. what point are you trying to prove here? that you were capable of writing a letter to the editor to Chuck Pollock or that you don't know everything. both are evident, though the latter we all generally accept to be true for all of us. for some reason in regards to you, it seems to be a surprise. jw ADD: and don't try to get out of this with the well-worn excuse that posters use when the thread they started didn't turn out the way they thought it might: "Oh, now i know why i don't post here often." bah-loney. you got off to a good start with making a point in sending Pollock a letter. but then you got off on this silly little tangent that has lead this thread into an altogether other direction. and you led us there. here's a cliche that you might or might not know (and i swear i didn't make it up): "you should've quit while you were ahead."

he did not. it's been a well-worn statement that's been used for many years. you can disagree with the cliche' but just because you haven't heard it, doesn't make it foreign or "made up." gees. why is this so difficult. jw

George was "playfully" referring to his numbers. jw

"Don't believe the hype." -- S George Wilson, a few moments ago passing through the media room. jw

fair enough, though there's one cantakerous poster in this thread who seems to be attempting to prove me right. ... jw

Well, well, well, turns out Hank acknowledges he took things juuuusst a littttle tooooo far. Ooops jw

umm, couple of things here: -- in the thread in question, i said it was a curious call, though it didn't decide the game. i then listed numerous stats to point out how poorly the Bills played and didn't deserve to win. someone called it "drivel" and said it's "moronic" that i don't see thier point that the officials essentially decided the game. -- i have never made any comment about the media being a "weathervane." -- when have i criticized the media? -- i have criticized you? you'll be sure to know when i've criticized you, and i've done nothing of the sort. my first post in that thread was: "i hate the fact that the officials allowed the Bengals to generate 450 yards offense. you'd think they'd get in the way of Dalton or Benson in an attempt to stop them. unfair." my second post was: "the Bills managed a season-low 12 first downs. they got into an opponents' territory a season-low three times, after doing that a combined 22 in previous three games. they would've scored 13 points if not for Florence's interception. they punted eight times. their defense has allowed 450 yards in three straight games for only the second time in team history according to STATS LLC. so i see where the officials are ultimately to blame. the call was a curious one, i agree. i don't think it proved anywhere near decisive. good teams rebound from adversity. the Bills overcame their own mistakes in previous two weeks. how anyone can chalk this loss up to the officials really wasn't watching." my third post was: "heading out to buy stock in dairy products. lots a spilt milk out there." my fourth post was: "why is it the refs are bad only when the Bills lose on this board? i'm sensing a trend." "my fifth post was in response to your comment in regards to you going out to buy fertilizer, so i thought i'd get a little cute (weak attempt, but it was an attempt): well, it's been evident your supply is running low. jw (couldn't resist) " i then proceeded to make several points and weak attempts at humor, but at no time did i dismiss your argument outright except to state my case that the catch-no-catch did not decide the game. not once did i suggest what you've written to be drivel or accuse your point of view as being moronic. all that being said, i would like to make it clear here that i completely dismiss the points you've made in this thread because they make absolutely little sense. your accusations are baseless and utterly false. i never called you delusional. i noted there are a few posters here i find to be delusional, with whom it's impossible to argue against. the fact that you're fully in the process of proving my point is not my problem. but keep digging if you must. jw

well, there's no arguing with you. jw

thought i'd give this more thought in my response, because i find your response curious because you seem to think this is all about you. whether i disagreed or discounted YOUR (why you choose to capitalize for empahasis is curious, too) argument is well neither here nor there. it's YOUR argument and you can do with it what you might. and if you happen to construe my point in this thread as being solely directed at you, well, that's what you get for inferring. but now that you mention it, YOU were the one who referred to my posts as essentially "moronic" and "drivel," when i did no such thing in response. there have been times (many times) in the past where i have come at posters, but never have i used the word "moron" or "idiot." and in recent months, those here who are familiar with my drivel might note that i've taken a bit of a more laidback approach. perhaps, i am the one who's delusional. and yet YOUR approach to this discussion seemed to make it out like this was YOU against me, when that wasn't the case. jw

something incredibly strange has happened among Bills fans of late and i can't seem to put my finger on it. several fans on this board and beyond have grown so bold in their belief that the Bills are pure, good, godly and infallible that they've gone so far as to refute any reasonable attempt at perspective and discussion. anyone saying anything hinting at the Bills having faults is suddenly regarded as a traitorous moron, and asked to somehow back up their hypotheses with facts (they're hypotheses so facts aren't part of the equation), told to go fornicate themselves and urged to go root for the Jets, Patriots, Dolphins and so on. i thought there was room on this board to actually have discussions. but it's becoming increasingly apparent that the delusional few have taken the reins. just one person's opinion. jw.

and yet, the Dixie Chicks went on to enjoy their most success by following up "Home" (which i thought was their best album) with a Grammy-winning release in "Taking the Long Way" (which i thought proved inconsistent). given that the Chicks are, in my opinion, superior artists than Hank Jr., and that Hank Jr. continues to plunge into the parody of being, as Paul Westerberg once wrote, "a rebel without a clue," i'm not sure if this will prove to be a great career move in the long run. of course, i could be wrong, but Hitler references -- whether analogous or intended (and i think there's a gray area here in that Williams knew exactly what he was saying and inferring) -- are generally career-dulling. and Williams career was barely on life support to begin with at this stage. jw

well, and there's the problem. Hitler stood firmly behind his beliefs. ergo, the analogy fails, on several levels. 1) why bring Hitler into the equation at all? 2) comparing Obama to Hitler in the case you make is not analagous because he is, in your view, the anti-Hitler. jw

The Dixie Chicks, whom I like (though their side project Courtyard Hounds is exceptionally pedestrian), can say what they want, and people can react in kind. Hank Williams Jr., who's father was one of the greatest recording artists this nation has ever produced, can also say what he wants, and people can react in kind. the difference is, The Dixie Chicks didn't have a contract with ABC/ESPN/Disney to provide a theme song for one of their most popular sports vehicles. Hank Williams Jr. did and is now paying the price for it. it's still a free country. and business is business. jw

can anyone be "ctuous" ... just wondering? seriously, the Bills still have much to prove and a better determination of how good they are will come over the next four games before they hit that three-game road stretch. jw

but how could the officials have been at fault in those two previous games. the bills won. jw

i checked. the standings still read: Buffalo 3-1. \ jw

maybe. maybe they don't. funny how hypotheticals work. jw

or they could've had a fumble returned for a touchdown on the very next play. since we're dealing in hypothesis, why must yours be less or more true than mine. jw

i hear ya. and yet, they wouldn't have gotten to 458 yards, either, had the Bills managed a stop on the Bengals' final 2 possessions, no? and Buffalo's last drive wasn't all that memorable either, unless it was the official that tripped Fred up on that 2-yard loss and/or incompletion on third-and-5. jw

some call it drivel, others call it facts. so are you including the Bills in your equation of expecting competence and consistency, too, or is this out-and-out homerism? jw

moronic? really? i'll defer to the numbers that mattered: 12 first downs (13 if Johnson's catch is ruled a catch) versus 25. a season-worst 6 punts (still a season-worst 5 punts if Johnson's catch is ruled a catch) season-low one TD on offense (still a season-low two if Johnson's catch is ruled a catch and he somehow pops up and runs into the end zone, because the officials missed the fact that he was touched down). season-low 199 yards passing for Fitzpatrick, still would've been a season-low 202 yards if Johnson's catch was ruled a catch. no touchdowns passing, season low. season-low two trips into the red zone. season-low 4-for-14 in third-down conversations, 5-14 would've matched a season-low if Johnson's catch was ruled a catch. season-low three drives into opponents' territory. would've still been a season-low if Johnson's catch was ruled a catch. season-worst 171 yards rushing allowed. defense allowed 25 first downs to a team that managed 49 in its first three games combined. 458 yards allowed, second-worst total of the season. allowed five third-down conversions to a team that converted 9 of its previous 38. allowed seven drives into Bills territory, one fewer than season-high of eight against New England. Andy Dalton is not Tom Brady. jw being moronic yet again.