zonabb

Your missing the point. The difference is that when busted by the cops and facing critcism, Roethlisberger didn't act like everyone was out to get him and like he did nothing wrong. He has been somehwta more contrite and apologetic. Lynch (and one time Pro Bowler, not a perennial, and I believe because someone else was injured so lets not anoint the guy as the next Chris Johnson) has acted like a child, refusing to speak to the media, skipping OTAs (voluntary or not, leaders and winners show up, losers like Lynch and Haynesworth don't). He was an overrated RB who was never going to be happy hear because people were critical of him. Thinned skinned, entitled, momma's boys like him are worthless and he proved it.

Good deal. This is a guy who didn't want to be here since last year when people got on his case about being a degenerate. His idea of responding to critcism from the media and from fans was to not speak to the media and act like a child. And I heard some people yesterday saying that Lynch was laughing and joking on the sidelines after funbling away the ball Sunday. Sorry, but you don't build teams around guys like this. As far as I'm concerned, trading him for anything was more beneficial than letting him continue to infect the lockerroom and creating a culture of disinterest on the team. Value isn't always the quantitative things you can see, like rushing yards, but also the qualitative things you can't see or measure, like heart, passion, desire and leadership and trading away someone who feels entitled to have his backside kissed and never face critcism is exactly the kind of message you have to send. Lynch is talent wasted by a bad attitude. Good riddance. So good on Nix and Co. for making statements these last couple weeks about the kinds of players you build around.

In order, RW, RW and then RW. The team has a franchise record of 354-397-8. They have played in 29 playoffs games, the vast majority coming in the early 90s under arguably one of the best GMs in league history who the owner dispatched. They haven't made the playoffs since 1999. They have 20 winning seasons that include a couple back to back 7-6 seasons in the AFL and a couple 9-7 season too. The legacy of this team under RW is one of a perennial loser with a losing records and 4 lost Super Bowls. The one constant in this team's franchise is the owner. Based on what we see as the product, what we hear after the things happen (such as Coy Wire's statement's last week about how first rate things are in ATL versus here), and the product on the field, one can only conclude that the owner is a cheap, meddling, power-hungry guy who thinks he knows everything, when the record says otherwise. I'd take a new owner many years ago, one that recognizes the significant asset an NFL franchise is and how to not make money by being thrifty, but by making money by investing in the product, from the front office and marketing to the coaches and players. RW has always made money his top priority and the team second. He's taken his $28,000 investment and our ticket purchases and govt subsidies and turned it into an $800M chunk of equity. His current goal is to make as much profit as he can every year. I was told by someone (politician) who had lunch with RW and his staff a few years back that RW told them the team's profit is about $20M a year. And because the business model works and he's clearing that kind of profit, he's not really motivated to make changes is he? Sadly, he fails to recognize the willingness of people to support the team and the amount of money he could make if the team was winning. I was in NE last week for the game, everyone wears Pats gear at the game. At Bills games, it's not nearly as evident. Why? Who wants to wear the dirty laundry of a loser. What player is worth investing in a jersey. I will say that I have done a 180 on the new stadium idea. Before going to NE, I thought this team was fine with this stadium. But after visiting Gillette and that experience, this team is way behind. You get in the stadiumm no matter how long the lines are in 5 minutes, not 30. The concession stands move fast, the concourses are wide and I can buy a Sam Adams draft for 50 cents cheaper than a warm Blue in a can. They sell beer at the seats! The players are on the scoreboard rallying the fans. It's almost like the fans matter, what a concept. Buffalo has a global icon here now, an NFL franchise. If this region is going to make a turn around in a global economy, this team has to stay because as much as we might not think so, it lends credibility to the region. It has stature. The NFL is a global business and we have an office here. Let's hope there is a way it remains here after this terrible owner gives it up.

How do you blame a coach who has been here 9 months and was handed a pathetic roster? How is it his fault that he couldn't draft 53 new players and cut the entire roster? What is Gailey supposed to do, you can only cut so many players and lose money. You have to field a team and this one sucks and the one next year will suck and the one after that will suck. Get real for five seconds and recognize that this team has a significantly flawed front office, from the owner down to the ticket department.

I like your points, but your title and your argument have one major flaw. Pioli was in NE when Crennel and Weis were there, so they are in fact an "old boys network." The difference is, that old boys network is good, the Bills one sucks. So I think your argument is that if your going to hire all your friends and former co-workers, make sure you hire good ones with experience. I'll buy that. I will add that Crennel and Weis would be hard pressed to make due with the garbage this team has drafted in the last 5-7 years. At some point, people have to recognize that if it were as simple as "coaching them up" every team would be good. The reality is, some teams have managed to draft and sign horrible players and no amount of quality coaching can help them. The Bills are one of those teams and will be until the old codger passes on and the team moves.

I'll agree with Vegas in the field goal point. I was at the game and that drove me nuts. That's a losers mentality, going for field goal instead of the 18 inches they needed. You lead people and this team has been lead for the last 10+ years into thinking that always being conservative and kicking field goals is how you win. Well, they continue to prove otherwise. You build a winning mentality by showing your team you have confidence and want to win. And when they kicked off to the Pats, I looked at my friend and said, already livid after the wimp out, that with 18 seconds left, the Bills under the last 4 coaches run once and then to the locker room, but real teams don't waste that time. Sure enough, the Pats used the 18 seconds to shove a stupid coaching call right down Chan and company's throat. And any argument for the conservative loser's mentality of "taking the points" was refuted in the second half when the 3-time Super Bowl winning coach went for it on 4th and 5 and eventually turned that into a touchdown. Problem is with people on this board and the league in general is that everyone has this old school idea of how the game should be played and all follow this stupid maxims like "You take the point" when winning coaches take advantage of that stupidity through creativity and playing the odds. The odds are in the team's favor when you need 18 inches. Sorry if that's hard to comprehend but the average play in the NFL is more than 18 inches, which means the odds are in favor of going for it. The issue here is one of psychology and culture and Chan had a chance to change the losing culture and defeatist attitude by making this team earn that first down and start building a winner through gaining confidence in situations like that. They get laughed at on the field for good reason. Losers like the Bills find a way to lose, winners throw convention out the window and find a way to win. So if you guys like losing conservatively, you're rooting for the right team.

Said it on here earlier today, this is the first guy I cut. REAL WRs get open, run great routes and most of all, try! This guy ones one route, refuses to run slants or over the middle as a part of his skillset and whines that he can't catch bombs all day. Granted, the QB sucks, but this guy doesn't do squat to make any QB we've had better.

Agreed. The history of this team under this owner is one of a loser. Sadly, as a region, we're bunched in with that and it hurts our chances of keeping the team. Winning solves everything and puts people in the seats, no matter what the tickets cost (look at the Sabres, they win in the regular season and charge more than the Bills for a meaningliness game in December). Win and you reap the financial rewards. I've said it before on the board, RW is a stingy, profit first owner whose business model is built on the idea that it's out responsibility to support his team, thorugh ticket sales and taxpayer subsidies, and that he's entitled to profit regardless of this sh!tty product. So I'll say it again, let's move to the end game here so we know what the fuiture it. The present sucks with this drooling, senile owner so let's find out what the future holds. Someone call this hand in and lets move on. However, I'll bet my own house this team is gone and that fact can be blamed on Wilson as well. The economics of buying a team for $800M and making money on the deal predicate it be moved. If he'd dedicated himself to winning foras, profit would follow. But he's always focused on profit first and hoped winning followed. So long as he made money every yera, he's been happy. The result support it. Without looking, I'd be this team has a losing record as a franchise, which is a direct reflection on ownership.

Gladly trade that loser. He's given up, a long time ago. We don't need quitters so start your cuts with this guy.

Great, but this team has shown a unique ability to botch first round picks so what makes anyone think they'd make a good choice at number one? I see a Ryan Leaf in our future.

They'll ne lucky to win 1 game. I've harped on this board for years that OL and DL are foundational positions and impact your O and your D. You have no offense without an decent OL, as we're all to familiar with as we've watched this offense suck for 10 years. Someone take off this skipping record. Same with the DL. We can have great DBs all we want, but eventually they're exposed without a pass rush. I can't understand how football minds can;t seem to understand what is a simple fundamental concept.

+1 Gailey has a chickensh!t approach. Although I will say he lacks a QB, an OL and WRs so maybe that hurts him!!!

Gailey has to change the mentality here or nothing can be accomplished. If they're going to suck, then players who try and lead and want to get better earn spots, the rest (Evans, Edwards) get cut. That simple. Call it the Missouri season... Show Me.

I sure hope so. You can start with cutting Lee Evans. All talk, no action. Won't and can't run the tough routes, can't get open, and basically is an unphysical WR no one is afraid off. Plus, hee seems to lack leadershop. He's the first cut in my mind.

+1

Same coaching staff with the same shortcoming... bad game planning, bad play calling, lacking in simplicity and trying to be too cute. Same horrible OL. Same horrible QB. Same putrid results. Continuing to not address the OL will continue to ensure a horrible team. Continuing to use a QB everyone knows SUCKS as bad as any this team has had is not the answer. Put anyone else but this loser in because they've shown they suck, so no need to "develop" the guy, he's an ultra-conservative, non-leader and should start considering his future outside the NFL.

Hate to say it, but the WORST roads I have ever driven on were in and around Norfolk this past July on my way back from the Outer Banks. They were so bad, I emailed and complained to VDOT when I got home. Without question worse than any post-winter pothole infested road in WNY. NO tolls is great, but if it means every gets to beat the s*$t out of their cars, I'm not sure that's the answer. As for the comment about liberal democratic votinf problems in NY, that's an easy idealist, rhetorical pronouncement not founded in any fact. Chew on this.... the Taylor Law, NYS's horrible law that handcuffs government in its dealing with state unions and their pensions and benefits and remains a major, costly problem was passed in the late 1960s under a REPUBLICAN Governor. I don't know who controled the state senate and house but governors have veto power so he could have vetoed it, so stop with the blaming all that's wrong with this state on democrats and democrat voter. This mess is the result of years and years of Albany corruption and indifference to the citizens of this state and each party is dult to blame. George Pataki, a Republican, was in office the 12 years prior to Spitzer/Patterson and he gets no blame? The bottomline is, people should stop playing their side of the aisle and trying to blame the other party and buy a mirror and ask yourself what your party has done to make it better if the other party has only made it worse. Remember, problems don't happen over night, just like this current recession, which is the result of the last 30 or so years of reducing regulations on businesses and the financial industry and look where its got us. Anyone expecting one president to reverse the course of this in 2 years or even one term is an idiot. You don't stop a runaway freight train that took 5 miles to reach top speed in a half mile.

Paladino is an insignificant blip on the radar who for the next two months gets to have his 15 minutes of fame. Then once the real election comes, he gets to be squashed by Cuomo and slink back into obscurity, taking more of the tax subsidies/breaks/incentives for his project to make him a millionaire that he vehemently opposes for the public as a whole, ie, he supports the easing of regualtions and freeing of taxpayer dollars to support business and millionaires under the false belief it trickles down to the common man. How's that been working since the 80s? Seems to ahev work real well for the rich cats on Wall Street and the Paladino's of the world. Not so much for those who are forced to operate within that strucuture and are now out of work. He's not worth discussing on this board in relation to football and in fact will only cause this thread to spin out of control, as you can tell by how close I am to write a lengthy reponse. Back to football.

Well, Urbik lost out on the top back-up position in Pittsburgh to an undrafted free agent so is he really any good, or better yet, the longterm solution at RT. I mean, he can't be worse than Green but that doesn't automatically make him an NFL starter! And Bell seems to be getting slammed pretty good on the board but it seems that Nix and some others who are more qualified to make that decision have said he played well. I was at the game, he didn't stand out as being excellent, but I don't recall noticing him as being a consistent problem. Hey, if he went without a penalty, that's improvement (did he?).

I just saw (about 45 minutes ago anyway) what appeared to be three fighter jets flying low in formation north of Amherst/Town of Tonawanda. Since that isn't a plane we see often around these parts, I'd guessing they were making a dry run. I always try to be in my seat for the fly-over, it's a major highlight and something I look forward. Some weak ones recently but this should be a great. I remember the last fighter flyover, seemed like it was just above the lights and rocked the stadium pretty good!!!

11 days on this board with 36 posts isn't likely to result in anyone taking your posts seriously, much less responding in kind. If you're truly new, you'll figure it out in short order that this board is lacking in intellect, maturity and tolerance for even the most minor mistakes. Get a thick skin, quickly. There are some good posters and a lot of people stricken with rabid cases of self-righteous pretentious douchebaggery, from signing all their posts with some stupid handle (self-anointing yourself and/or using a nickname dropping on you by a frat brother, friend or co-worker is sophomoric and people laugh at you, not with you) to pasting links with the same word over and over and over (inside jokes are in fact not funny). If you like childish, back-stabbing and one-ups-manship, this is the place for you. If you want intelligent discussion of football, you've come to the wrong place. And by intelligent, I don't mean everyone agrees, I mean disagreements can be had in an amiable and intellectual fashion, not degrade into something you'd see when peaking into the 4-year-old room at your kids daycare. The sniping on this board is second to none.

I don't see this as some clever plan to put the guy on the PS. If he ahd potential and you wanted to PS the guy, why would you cut him first as opposed to playing him a lot in the last preseason game to get him some work? The PS theory doesn't hold water.

I can't stand Sullivan and in fact don't read the guy, just get subjected occasionally to his anger on the radio. He's obviously an angry, self-loathing individual. No one can be that argumentative and spiteful over something as meaningless as football unless he's wracked with his own issues, and that is definitely the case with this guy. I've said it before on this board, he's a columnist in a newspaper that doesn't rank in the top 50 in the country for readership and is in a one newspaper town. That should tell you all you need to know about his skills and ability. If he was good, he;d be somewhere else, not toiling in obscurity. All that beind said, if he says our LBs suck, I'll take his back here. Poz is overrated and the rest as miscast and castoffs. Look, a LB is someone who makes an impact the first day he steps on the field. It's not a position where you need to grow and learn in the NFL. You have it or you don't. Great ones are impact players immediately. We don't have one. You can't look at them singularly as a group. They have to be measured in context with the rest of the NFl, both as a group and as individuals and both ways, they don't stack up. I see it as a weakness, not an asset.

No, which is why I asked! I was curious. Post-draft analysis before a guy makes a team is ridiculous. Any argument for the guy should be withheld until he makes the team, then people like Easterbrook can revisit the draft and ask why a guy doesn't get drafted.

Does he make the team, that's the only question I have. Who cares about someone's draft analysis about how good an undrafted player is. If he doesn't make the team, the point it moot.