CodeMonkey

If it isn't, it should be. They backed into a wildcard at 9-7. They should be touting the promising future.

I suspect most if not all of the hard core nfl fans will end up watching. They might be too ashamed to admit it, but they'll be watching

For me it has nothing to do with the pats and more just a lack of interest in the NFL in general except for the Bills. My answer would have been NFW pats or no pats ... unless the Bills were in it

Normally I'd be in the "kinda, going to a party where it will be on" category. But interest in tackle football, except for the Bills, has been fading in our group of friends for years so we decided no party this year. Instead, the families are getting together to do something outside (weather permitting).

Agreed about the parental responsibility, particularly now that the effects are well known.

No not by itself. But it is a huge, HUGE, contributor to those that play the game. Particularly professionally. To think this study absolves the NFL from any future litigation is foolish, IMO.

They went 9-7 this past season and backed into the playoffs. Not spectacular by any stretch of the imagination. QB is unsettled to say the least. Most of the teams stars are elderly by NFL standards. And they just switched OCs again. On the plus side, the HC seems like a keeper so far and they have a buttload of draft picks to work with. 7 wins is a fair, if not slightly conservative, guess for January.

Day drinking can be a very dangerous thing. Just go to a few of the parking lots before any Bills home game for a demonstration.

"Previous studies have shown that repetitive hits to the head -- even without concussion -- can result in CTE" Repetitive hits to the head is the definition of tackle football. This news is worse for the future of tackle football as we know it today, not better.

Well yeah, why else would they hire him? And they needed a coach who could operate in a Coughlin designed team, which they apparently have. Good for them.

Both feet in bounds before touching the ball, his foot that was out of bounds was up in the air. Just like basketball.

That was a horrible game to watch, plus the Bills lost which made it worse.

I guess you haven't been following what has been going on lately in hollywood and DC if you think that.

It was competitive I guess in that the score was close. However the quality was atrocious. Particularly both QBs.

It was absolutely the right call. Neither offense was doing **** until then. You take the sure 3 in that case every time. The same people complaining about that call would have called for McCoaches head if he went for it and got stuffed (which they did a LOT prior to that).

From what I recall, it wasn't a rivalry in the eyes of Miami fans even then.

My point, which must be over your 5 year old mentality, was that you can't hire old people and expect them to keep up with the speed of NFL players, and not make mistakes due to that. But yes, a fitness test would probably be a good place to begin.

The first thing to do IMO is stop hiring officials that are 150 years old.

I agree with the bungles not winning part. Good news is they don't need to, it just makes the Bills path harder. But first things first, squish the fish. If the fish want to play, I think it will be a close game. Outdoors on grass does not favor the bills. But imagine if the bungles do somehow manage to beat the ravens, but the bills lose. How much would that suck.

Well nobody got paid.

The claim was that he didn't have control until he lifted up his foot after the drag that kicked up the pellets.

The fact that they initially called it a catch is part of the overall problem. Anything in the endzone that is even close, they call it a TD knowing it will get automatically reviewed. They seem to throw away the "indisputable evidence" part in these cases because of that. Looking at the replay I think it was not a catch. And if it was not in the endzone I don't think they overturn it, it was just too close. Clearly they need to look at the "what is a catch" thing again this off season. It clearly is broken the way it is.

I think he is a good non-gameday head coach. His team does not quit and is generally very prepared. I think his calling is being a DC, not a HC. He consistently makes questionable if not wrong decisions during games. But with the caveat that this is his first season as a HC. He could well figure that out and end up being a very good HC.

Not when it is that cold. It affects both the ball and how far it carries. But I don't hate the call. The offense wasn't doing much and he has a hell of a kicker.

That and except for the top couple teams, the AFC REALLY sucks.