Ronin

ROFLMAO!!!! Oh come on, relax and enjoy the humor! I'm still laughing over here!

As someone else pointed out, that was properly overturned. But American Errol Spence also got screwed. I just happened to turn the Toob on when he was fighting against Vikas from India. Spence clearly won the fight and when it was being announced, the ref even prematurely held up Spence's hand while they were announcing the winner, but it ended up being Vikas. To Vikas' credit, he seemed like he knew that he didn't deserve to win. They came over to talk to him and he just kind of yanked himself away from them and the camera with a disgusted look on his face. It wasn't as bad as the Roy Jones debacle years ago, but for the same reasons, Olympic boxing is all but meaningless w/o a detailed investigative financial audit of all of the judges.

Such as? Let's start there and qualify your comments and go from there.

Good assessment. To say that the corners are green is to understate matters. McKelvin stinks as a starter and all the rest of the corners combined have about as many starts as there are corners on the roster. It's all rookies and second year corners that didn't play last season and have no experience. Could derail the gains made on the DL. Otherwise, future concerns are that Jackson will fall off any year. We all know he's "low mileage," but age catches up to all players and RBs hit a wall at 31/32 almost w/o exception. Is Spiller his heir? Fitzpatrick had the fewest sacks of any QB but the most INTs last season. He also ranked 23rd in yards-per-attempt behind Tarvaris Jackson and Rex Grossman. How does a QB do that? For the same reasons that they designed an offense around another QB that was even worse, Trent Edwards, whom Gailey supported lock, stock, and barrel in coming to Buffalo. Huge question marks surrounding Fitz's play. Otherwise, Nix and Gailey have won 10 games in two seasons. Until they win that many in one season, they could find themselves looking for new work next season. Is it not possible that both are in over their heads? It's nice that they signed Mario, but how many times did he lead the Texans to the playoffs or 10 win seasons? ... oh that's right, none. The Bills were 1-7 on the road last season and this season four of their first six games are on the road. 7 of their first 11 are on the road. If they don't start winning some road games, the home games at the end of the season won't matter. I don't know whether to thank the NFL for allowing us to play the Jags, Rams, Seahawks, and Fins in December, or hate them for giving us all these road games up front.

It's beyond a proven fact that pro sports teams cost their communities money and do not add to it in a net fashion. It's one of the ugly truths of pro sports, particularly football, and one that is not talked about often for that very reason. Fans don't want to know that, the league and individual teams most certainly don't want to highlight it, and the sports media talks about what favors them, and that's not it. In these tough economic times however, numbers don't lie, and communities just don't have the money to cover the financing on stadiums and whatnot. That's typically the deal, that a community covers financing on stadiums plus/minus some other things. Think about that, even at 4 or 5%, if someone else covers the financing on your home over 20 or 30 years, that's no chump change and in fact actually costs more than the home itself. They don't give you the whole figure that the community will be paying, rather they state the finance/interest rate so that it appears to be an insignificant fraction of what it actually is. Here are some recent articles on the topic, but this notion that pro sports teams bring net revenue to a region or city is as bogus as a three-and-a-half dollar bill and a complete myth. Usually what it means is new or increased taxes of one variety or another meaning that the taxpayers and consumers in a region are actually directly picking up the tab. So unless they all get those tax increases back, it's a net loss for the citizens, and many of those citizens don't even watch the games much less attend them. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/12/496136/foul-play-five-cities-that-want-taxpayer-money-to-finance-stadium-boondoggles/?mobile=nc http://www.cultofmoney.com/2012/02/14/new-stadiums-taking-from-the-old-and-sick-and-giving-to-millionaires/ In this article, the question is asked ... Ilya Shapiro asks, “If luxury stadiums were hugely profitable, why would the savvy businessmen who own the teams let the politicians in on the windfall?” The short answer is that they're not profitable. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/public-financing-of-private-sports-stadiums/ As this article reveals, stadium financing often leads to lower wages in a region or the immediate area for several reasons. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-03/as-super-bowl-shows-build-stadiums-for-love-and-not-money-view.html Here's a really nice summary article; http://dontmesswithtaxes.typepad.com/No_Public_Money_for_Stadia.pdf

Absolutley

The question was never whether he was a "good football player or not," it was always whether he was worth his Schobel-like contract. Lots of players are "good football players," that doesn't mean you give them all a $25M contract with well over half of that guaranteed.

If we beat the Pats twice then we'll win the division. There's no chance on earth that the Pats will go 14-0 or even close if we beat them twice. In fact, if we beat them twice, I'd wager that they win no more than 11 games. Not that I see that happening, just sayin'. ^%$^ Pats also have an easier schedule than we do. We have to play the Niners on the road, they get them at home. We have Houston on the road too, they have them at home. Except for Baltimore, who will beat them, they don't have any tough road games at all. We also play them twice while they play us twice. Until we prove that we're better than they are, that's easier for them. I see them being 13-3 again or around there. We won't hit that. You got that right. And as soon as Marcia's gone we'll see how good Belichick really is because he's sucked all those years without Brady. Brady adds four wins annually easy. Don't disagree, but that would be unacceptable.

We'll see. Evans should be the #1 on the Jags. And fwiw, not that I think that Johnson will have a bad year, I just think that Evans will have 1,000 plus. I also suspect that Gabbert will have no worse a season than Fitzy will.

Many of us don't go to games anymore, that doesn't mean that we're not fans. The options are sucking up mediocrity and being bad, or complaining about what isn't being done properly. Our team has the longest playoff drought and hasn't seen them in any year beginning with the digit 2, hasn't won a playoff game since what, 1995 or something, and has only one winning season in years beginning with the digit 2 and since the Wade Phillips years. Until that changes it should be perfectly understandable that many fans don't go to the games. It has nothing to do with support, it has to do with expending one's resources to go watch incompetence on display. People are getting really gung ho over Mario, and apart from him not much has changed. But the Texans never made the playoffs with him on the team for the full season, and they had Schaub, Andre Johnson, and Owen Daniels in their passing game. Fitz is no Schaub, Johnson is no Andre, and we don't have a TE that is going to make any kind of difference. There are still a lot of hurdles for this team. I mean who even knows what the starting LB rotation will be. We know that Barnett and Sheppard are shoe ins, but after that, it's anyone's guess. A rookie starting CB? Pro Football Weekly even posted an article talking about how unlikely it would be for teams to start rookies at any one of three positions, QB, LT, and CB, to make the playoffs. We're facing rookies at two of them. I don't know, but I would prefer to go watch games when I know that they're not OJT auditions. I miss the days of yore under Kelly, Bruce, and competence on the team that truly let us know that we were capable of beating any team in the league. Going to those games, even when we lost, was enjoyable. Going to these games, at least speking for myself and other fans that I've spoken with, is not enjoyable. It's like going somewhere where you suspect that you're going to regret going when it's all done. The fact that your wallet's a hundred bucks lighter per head all the way around afterwards doesn't help the thought that you just wasted your day or make it any easier.

By the by, anyone want to make a friendly wager that Evans has a bigger year in Jacksonville than Johnson does in B-Lo. No need to reply, just thought I'd throw that out there. I don't think that Fitzpatrick is going to make it much past the bye week without major criticism being heaped on him by media as well as fans. Johnson's also going to be double-covered often. We can all sit here and ignore Fitzpatrick's last 10 games from last season, but until proven otherwise, that's the QB that comes out of the gates.

LOL Yeah, it was amazing how he underachieved w/ Holcomb, Losman, and Edwards throwing the ball. Heads up analysis.

I would still suggest that it's the case. Agree that the division is the Pats' for the taking for as long as Brady is on the team for at least the next two or three seasons. The West is weak tho as is the South. Houston's the strongest team there and they only won 10 games last season. That essentially leaves the North, and yes, Pitt and the Ravens are good, but after that, if we can't edge Cincy for a WC spot, then my original point stands. Also, we play the West, and other than for Denver w/ Manning now, if this team is really that good should be able to beat the other three teams. We play Cleveland and Jax, 'nuff said there. Apart from Ne, Pitt, Baltimore, and Denver, the schedule's not tough, and if we can't beat any of those teams at least once or twice, I'm not sure how much of a playoff ready team this would be then. Make sense?

There shouldn't be any excuses then to not make the playoffs. If Gailey can't do it with this squad, then it may be time to reevaluate him.

As long as taxpayer money, now largely deficit spending, subsidizes the organization and therefore helps pay salaries and line Wilson's pockets, the team owes "from whence those monies came" something. Agree or disagree, that's a fact. IMO they owe it back. Everyone says that the NFL is a business. Well how many of us can start a business and draw money from the state or county to help run it? Very few, and the ones that do are the biggest and most corrupt. The NFL may be a business, but it's no different than the biggest and most corrupt corporations that are ruining this country in that way. It should be a self-contained business model but it is not. It should pay for its own stadiums, player and coach salaries, etc., but does not. Meanwhile, players, like Mario, make about $100M and a lot of it is coming from you if you live in Erie County or NYS. Support it or not, it's wrong. Do they owe us? Depends upon your POV. IMO they owe "us" meaning the taxpayers, money. We'll never see it, and our taxes are what they are because we are forced to pay them nevertheless or watch the country/state increase their debt. Government is out of control. And what is "government?" It's not even a person, they're corporations unto themselves registered in the state of Delaware.

The Bills have had "experts" running this team into the ground for years. Listening to another one shouldn't excite anyone given their track record. As merely one example, remember when everyone was on board the Trent Edwards Express just because former Niners great coach Bill Walsh said that Edwards was going to be great. Yeah, well ... And what makes Lee such an expert anyway? His biggest claim to fame is the wildcat, a gimmick offensive set w/ limited use. Are you impressed with his work on Henne, a former 2nd rounder and now all but journeyman backup, while he was at Miami? I think you've had too much of the Kool-Aid. We'll find out this season though, but when a QB has a passing game built around him that relies on shorter passes to the extent that we had one of the shortest passing games in the league last year and ahead of only a few scrub teams, but he still leads the league in INTs, that's not good. Also not good is that Fitz cannot seem to capitalize except early in a season and in a new system that opponents haven't seen. This season he starts using the same essential offensive scheme as last season, so we should know right quick whether he's more of a backup than he is a starter. We're also going to find out if Nix and Gailey are starters or backups too. Third season after having posted the worst two-season combined record for the team since the Stephenson years. 9-7, a winning season, is minimally acceptable at this point, wouldn't you agree?

Seems to me that our biggest problem defensively in the past few seasons has been the inability to stop the running game of our opponents, usually featuring RBs not even in the top 10 in the NFL. 2011: 28th yardage, 27th YPA 2010: DFL in both yardage and YPA 2009: 30th in yardage, 31st in YPA The latter two on Nix's watch. Teams run first if they can. They may not succeed up the middle this season, but the past few years they've had a heyday on the outsides and there's not a lot of reason to expect that to change this year. The pass rush has been weak, but not as bad as the run D which over the past three seasons has been the worst in the league.

That's an excellent and very objective assessment. After reading through several posts, I can see the annual offseason optimism is in full force. One person quickly comes to mind, P.T. Barnum. I would digress with you on the notion that Nix has done a good job. He's done a no-brainer job. Dareus last year was an extreme no-brainer pick. The entire league was after Mario and the only reason why we got him is because we sold the farm to get him here. Anderson is good, but he's more role player than 3-down starter. He is also very overcompensated considering. So really, the big change from last season to this one is Mario so far. Who's expecting anything else major? There's nothing left. One great DE doesn't make a team contend, just ask the Vikes. Everyone's going to jump down your throat here, but you're absolutely correct, and yes, the team owes us long-time fans a playoff season in their perennial boy-who-cried-wolf charade promising us playoffs and a competitive team. To add to your post, what happens if Johnson goes down? Or Jackson? Spiller still hasn't proven a thing much less that he's a 3-down back. Fitzpatrick was the least sacked QB in the league, but then led the league in INTs. How do your detractors reconcile that? Also, he's only been successful to above average standards for a QB in the early part of the last two seasons, both times having a new system as an "element of surprise." Once teams figured out the Bills' offensive system, he's been mediocre at best. He enters this season in the same system as last season and with only one notable WR. I would expect steady-state performance as a continuation of last season, not another 10 TDs in three or four games start to skew his season stats. After Williams, basically a red-shirt rookie, and Gilmore, a true rookie, we have absolutely no depth even worth mentioning at CB. What if one of them goes down? It was dumb to cut Florence, yet so many think that Nix is good. Stupid move. Anyway, the measure of a good GM is what he does after the no-brainer stuff is set aside, and I see very little that he's done after Mario and Dareus. In fact, take them off the roster and what do we have? IMO we have a 4 or 5 win team. Anyway, good post, don't be discouraged by the detractors that will likely be calling for everyone's head in November. The Bills have made one "big move," signing Mario, and they mortgaged the farm to land him. Don't think that moves like that are going to happen every year, you don't win championships by signing two or three big FAs, you still win them by building a solid all-around team via the draft and free agency combined. Fans are overrating the value of Mario. Look at Minnesota, they had Allen who was a madman last year, but they only won 3 games in a division that's very similar to ours. Another case-in-point on this, who is the Bills' nickel CB right now? Does anyone here even know? And what of that player? McGee's washed up and hasn't made it through a season in years, wouldn't be surprised if he's cut, but he cannot be relied on for this. So who then? (asking generally speaking) I'll help ya out, being a fan is discussing any and all aspects of the team and its play, not just the rah-rah good ones. Contrarily, one could say that they don't understand posts such as yours which seem to indicate an apathy towards competence on the football field much less winning, ... no?

Kuechly is a MLB.

ROFLMAO

Regarding the Cleveland game, this is about the most accurate statement I've read on Evans in Baltimore to date, it comes from this source; http://www.baltimorebeatdown.com/2011/12/26/2661363/ravens-need-more-production-from-wide-receivers Lee Evans was targeted four times but was held with no catches. Evans was wide open on a number of plays in which Flacco did not see him or chose to go to another player. Every time a play was designed to go to him he was either covered or the ball was badly overthrown. It is no secret that Evans and Flacco are not on the same page. It may be time to stop trying to force the ball to Lee and just hope that he can make plays as the second or third option. Maybe these two can develop some chemistry by accident because forcing the issue does not seem to be working. From what I've seen all season, Flacco has badly over or under thrown Evans all year and missed seeing him on numerous routes where, as these guys say, he's been wide open. He took heat for not breaking up that INT v. Cleveland, which wisely wasn't mentioned here as a bad thing, because that pass too was 3-5 yards underthrown and had Flacco put it in the middle of the end zone it would have been a TD since Evans had his WR beat. I've never watched Flacco that closely, but both he and Cameron have some serious issues to correct.

The bottom line is that under Nix/Gailey the team has not improved. Despite going from Edwards, a real schlep of a QB and one that Gailey initially thought was good, to Fitzpatrick, an average one, and significant additions on D, the team is no better than the 6-10/7-9 team that they inherited. The offense is perhaps marginally better, but that addition-by-subtraction upgrade from Edwards to Fitzpatrick should have yielded more than that. Meanwhile, the D has gotten significantly worse despite greater talent on it. That's not to say that it's talented, but they do have Dareus and Barnett this season. Anyway, after the Pats shred our D for another 40 points come Sunday, Gailey's D will have allowed more points than any Bills' D since probably 1984 when the Bills reeked and no one went to games. They've barely outscored Jauron's '08 team, probably won't outscore Malarkey's '04 team, and will probably hover around Williams' '02 team for points scored. Hardly impressive. It's time to face facts, the Bills have once again hired an inept GM and coach, who in turn hired ridiculously inept coordinators. Even if we win on Sunday, the Bills haven't lost more games in two seasons under a head coach since the Bullough/Stephenson days in the mid-80s when no one even went to games and the upper decks were completely empty and even the lower bowl was only half-full on the sidelines.

Another argument is why should El Cheapo do anything to win as long as there are plenty of suckers such as yourself and those agreeing with you below that keep lining his pockets, ... win or LOSE. I mean put yourself in Wilson's shoes. You obviously don't care about winning. You do care about your money. And hey, there's more than enough people like you perfectly willing to give it to him. ... so why should he put a winning team on the field. Here's a clue, they're not going to turn things around. They've had one good era and that was under Polian whom Wilson fired over essentially nothing. There has been no other winning era. You might be able to find a couple consecutive winning seasons, but the Bills outside of the Polian era and the players/roster that he assembled, have made the playoffs only six times and are 1-6 in the playoffs otherwise, and half of those seasons were on the fumes of the Polian era. So it's nice that you and some others are playing the tough guy fan man, but that's been part of the problem, people that pay to see anything and support the team financially despite the fact that the team isn't doing its part to reward the fans for their loyalty. In short, you're wasting your BILL-IEVE beer muscles. This team has no history, at all, of winning outside of an accident named Bill Polian, whom Wilson saw fit to fire in the midst of an ongoing production of "the 90s era" that someone else mentioned. It's not like Wilson hired Polian, Polian stepped into the role after the GM at the time had a heart attack, otherwise it's doubtful he ever would have even gotten the job. Anyway, you enjoy seeing those blue seats and then report to us how much fun it was shelling out your hard-earned scratch for this kind of play. But it's not going to change, not as long as everyone thinks like you do. Sorry to have to be the messenger on that one.

Amen to that! ROFLMAO

I thought that that spot was correct. Why did you think it was wrong?