simpleman

I can imagine it now, as the home team player tosses the winning TD ball into the stands the defensive player leaps into the stands and intercepts the ball, Incomplete pass, no catch.LOL.

I agree. From the replays on TV he clearly had control and feet down. Tasker said he had to give the ball to the ref or obviously spike it. I though he was joking at first. I too would like to see the video of the angle you saw that was not shown in the broadcast. Exactly. In the 2nd patriots game, Brady to Gronk. TD!

In yesterday's game there was a pass that clearly was in control of the receiver, he had both feet in-bounds. The defender then hit the receiver again a 2nd time and knocked the ball loose out of the back of the end-zone. Are there different rules for the end-zone and the rest of the field? Wouldn't such a play result in the receiver's team retaining possession at the point where the ball went out of bounds after the catch if the receiver advanced a few feet due to his momentum after the catch, and wouldn't it be ruled a completion if it happened on the rest of the field? Would it have mattered if the ball had went out of the field at the end-zone sideline rather than the back of it? Why is there such an exception in the end-zone vs the rest of the field ? In a case like this, then does that it mean there is no such thing as a receiver making a catch and fumbling the ball in the end zone that can be recovered by the other team after it hits the ground? There can only be interceptions and not recoverable fumbles on pass plays that take place completely in the end zone? If it isn't a catch, then it can't be a fumble that could be recovered, it can only be an in-completed pass? No turnovers? If the same play happened in your end-zone, and you fumbled it after the catch and it was recovered by the other team in the end-zone after hitting the turf would the same logic apply, and it would not ruled be a safety, since the receiver was never deemed to have control of the ball the whole time he was in the end-zone? The rules don't seem logical to me. Someone who is up on the rules please explain. Thank you

We already have Bush here for those 4 games, and he will be fresh when he hits the field. The way he plays I don't think he will have a long shelf life in the NFL anyway because of injuries. Between Bush and him I like the chances of them both contributing enough to cover the position for the whole season. I doubt he would make it a full 16 games without an injury anyway, so it works for me this way. And if Bush is decent in the return game, he is a bonus we would not have had if Karlos had not been suspended and forced the Bills hand.

Haters will be haters. Now that he is cleared for practice I hope he throws himself into training camp and redeems himself. If he is ready, practices hard to be fully prepared, gets in shape and then stays that way, I will welcome him back when his suspension is lifted. As long as he contributes as much this year to the team's success as he did last year, I will be satisfied. I don't care what a screw up he is off the field as long as he makes the Bills a better team on the field.

The Bills don't know what they have, anymore than they knew what they had in Fitz when they gave him his big contract. There is a difference between thinking you know and knowing. Between proof and hope and dreams. There is no reason to give him his new contract until he actually proves himself ON THE FIELD, in the real season, on a consistent basis. What he shows in training camp or without pads and not under real game pressures means little. There are always many "Training Camp Hall of Famers" who are "deer caught in the headlights" when they face real NFL opposition. Paying him what he is worth can wait till he proves he is not just another "placeholder" QB until the Bills find their Franchise QB, or is in fact a serious contender to be a Franchise QB. The right thing to do is pay him what he is actuaally worth. If he proves to be a serious contender for the Franchise QB, he deserves to be paid as one. If he proves himself this year to be just a placeholder, he deserves a lot less than a Franchise QB is worth. Smart teams don't grossly overpay for a similarly tested Osweiler, while other teams take crazy gambles on them. Which ones make the Superbowl? The Bills have 2 years to decide his real worth, waiting another 5 or 6 months is the right thing to do. If he proves himself, he will be more than reasonably compensated for the 3 Million he is slated to get this year.

I'm not ready to get drunk on the Koolaide you are drinking just yet. We all hope that TT makes some major advancements this year when the real football is played. But it is way too early to anoint him a Franchise QB just yet. Remember Trent, Edwards, Fitz. ... They all looked good to the hungry eyes wishing for them to be the one. Don't repeat history and anoint them too soon. Let him prove it this year first.

Seems like signing with the Jets would be the best option for him. The question will be if they are willing to give him a multi year with incentives that fits their cap and gives him guaranteed money over a couple of years. If he is not a long term starter, he is at least an excellent future backup when the Jets get their true Franchise QB.

thanks again for the great info! :thumbsup:

Can't agree that TT has proven enough to not put him in the Fitz, Trent category yet, this is his prove it year. We have 2 years with the tag to decide if TT actually is worth it. Don't need to gamble. And by 2018 we might even have drafted a true franchise QB, never know.

Thanks for the informative breakdowns TurnerE

The original poster is officially in the running for the most pessimistic poster on this board, and that's no little feat, LOL!

I have to agree on Mike Williams. I thought his ceiling would be very good. Or his floor would at least be average. Was I wrong.

I won't paste the links and get too off topic about private lots at Bills games, but in fact there was an off duty PO working security that night in Orlando. He initially exchanged gunfire with the killer. He was almost immediately joined by two on duty PO who were patrolling that immediate area at the time. Their combined gunfire drove the killer deeper into the club and caused him to take hostages. Those particular guns/police were not able to save anyone at that time. They did their best, but there is even a possibility it might have made the final outcome worse. We don't know if it did or didn't then, and we certainly don't know what effect the patrols of private property might have IF there actually is ever a legitimate terror attack attempt on a Bills home game You have repeatedly said that just the fact that if you rent out space for parking, that causes that land to become public property during the games. I am not a lawyer, so I can't say what the actual legal standing is. Is anyone here a lawyer who can inform us of the actual status of the property without the agreement Orchard Park is requiring the property owners to sign? Since that is what this whole chain was about.

I saw my 30s a long , long time ago, yet I still care about my constitutional rights. Sadly I think that many on here who see nothing wrong with trashing MY 4th amendment rights are pure hypocrites. They are the same individuals that scream, put up lawn signs, and get all hyper about any type of even minor or reasonable "restriction" of their 2nd amendment rights as they have been told by the NRA to interpret it, even though the NRA itself interpreted much different 40 or 50 years ago. If my safety is put at risk because of their right to bear arms, that is alright. But if someone even mutters the word terrorism, they see no problem restricting MY 4th amendment rights to protect them. As someone else mentioned, most are willing to understand having to endure extra security measures at the stadium, restrictions on carry in items, checking cars parked close to the stadium, etc. to protect us from possible bad things. But it is when those actions move away from the reasonable and basic, and to places like remote private property, and require citizens to give up their constitutional rights just to make some extra cash so they can have a better life, then we have issues. Especially when "terrorism" is used to cover up the real thing they are afraid of, embarrassment over the conduct of a few and of the region's / the Bills pubic image. Police are good and bad, but they are still just people. They do not change and become morally superior once they put their uniforms on. They are still the good and bad people they were the night before. They still have their angers, their frustrations, their prejudices. Their personal issue, aggravations from the night before are still there. The framers of the constitution realized that just because you put on a uniform, or were elected to office, you would not magically become a perfect, moral, just person. We would hope they would try harder to be, but the reality is that not everyone will. There is no black and white, just varying shades of gray in good and bad when it comes to human nature. The framers of the constitution realized that and they tried to create rules to help protect us from that reality and those inevitable shades of human nature

Here is mine. Russ Brandon is one of the major success stories for the Bills over the past decade. He is a Football marketing phenom and I would hate to see the Bill's lose him. But keep him as far away from on field decisions as possible, he is good at Marketing and the Business Side of the Bills and should be kept to what is is good at.

I wouldn't call it unpopular. Its sad and its true. We may prefer not to hear certain things said out loud, but that does not make them necessarily unpopular.

So tell me, does Zima age well? Your stash must be getting to be real vintage, LOL.

The fact that the local government is in effect black-mailing the landowner into allowing the police unfettered access to private property and effectively treating it as public property is in fact a seizure of private property for public use. It allows the police the legal ability to perform searches of the property without a warrant. You understand that under the agreement signed by the landowner the local agencies don't need a warrant to search your property while you are visiting the lot. I don't ague that Hammer has every right to expel people from his property, he simply has to refund their money and tell them to leave. "Consider that since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Americans have been no more likely to die at the hands of terrorists than being crushed to death by unstable televisions and furniture. You are 55 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist. You’re Much More Likely to Be Killed By Brain-Eating Parasites, Texting While Driving, Toddlers, Lightning, Falling Out of Bed, Alcoholism, Food Poisoning, Choking On Food, a Financial Crash, Obesity, Medical Errors or “Autoerotic Asphyxiation” than by Terrorists." Fear of foreign inspired terrorism is a tool used by politicians to manipulate the weak minded to support them. I am much more concerned about drunken drivers killing me after the game than I am about being killed by a terrorist during the game. I have no problem with drunk driving patrols, searching individuals for weapons when entering the stadium, checking vehicles directly adjacent to the stadium for explosives. But extending that to remote private property is not acceptable.

I was not insulting you Hammered, I just felt that you among this board was the most affected. Your silence on the issue seemed strange, as it so affected you and you always jump to comment on local issues that could affect you. I hoped for your perspective on the issue as someone close to the issue, and thank you for providing that input. As a fan, I obviously have a different perspective, I just want to have a good time and enjoy the game without being hassled. What others do to enjoy the game is their business if it does not hurt me or others. To me the issue is not about having to get a permit, whether you call it a private or commercial lot permit, but being forced to sign away your constitutional rights and freedoms in order to get one. You are not concerned about it, but others might not feel the same about giving up their protected 4th and 5th amendment rights in order to make a living ( or raising your standard of living as a supplement). Your choice to freely give up those rights is your personal decision, but it should be just that, an uncoerced decision, not something anyone is forced to do just to run a simple business. And the bogus justification of terrorism being the driving force behind the reasons is ridiculous nonsense.

Did I miss it, was Hammer too afraid to comment on this due to fear of governmental retaliation if he speaks up? It is his Constitutional rights that are being directly infringed on, and his customers indirectly. Interesting how everyone is so worried about the possibility of someone's 2nd amendment rights might somehow be infringed upon, and are so unconcerned that this action is a direct infringement of our protected 4th Amendment rights. Sadly the racism and prejudices of certain individuals here on this sports board are in full display. Do we have to give up more and more of our constitutionally protected rights just to attend a football game?

Good hiring decisions? Good firing decisions? Coaches since Levy and the winning Bills era. Wade Phillips 1998–2000 1st coach to succeed Levy. Probably the most successful former head coach post Levy Gregg Williams 2001–2003 Never again head coach, has been suspended & scandal plagued. Mike Mularkey 2004–2005 Continued and has been/is head coach. Was not fired. Left after disagreement on teams “direction” Dick Jauron 2006–2009 Never again a head coach, currently even coaching in NFL? Perry Fewell 2009 Never again head coach, not even currently coaching after last firing. Chan Gailey 2010–2012 Never again NFL head coach Doug Marrone 2013–2014 Left Bills on own accord for greener pastures he thought existed. They didn’t. Never again head coach. Is it bad to fire head coaches? Only one fired head coach, Phillips in 2000, 16 years ago, has gone on to proven success as a head coach. Mularkey and Marrone quit on their own, they were not fired. Mularkey has had success. Turnover in coaches has not caused the Bills to fail at success. Firing a bad coach is not a losing strategy. History has shown that firing the coaches they did was not a bad Bills decision, the costly decisions were mostly hiring bad coaches in the first place

Did you ever think that it was not the fact that we fired a lot of coaches in those 16 years that got us where we are today, but the fact that we have hired a lot of bad coaches in those 16 years. Admitting you made a mistake and moving on is not the problem, it is the fact that we keep making such bad hiring decisions in the first place. Over and over, and over, and over ... and Rex!

I don't know who will be available, but if Rex is gone, it needs to be a coach that has proven he can take the talent already on the roster and design a winning game plan around that talent. Hiring an inflexible coach like Rex required a major purge of the roster and sent the Bills into another cycle of rebuilding. That is the rinse and repeat that does not succeed. In today's fast moving, win now NFL environment the secret is to find a coaching staff / management that can successfully find ways to use the square pegs they are given in a game plan that creates the square holes that they can fit in, not to butcher them to shave off the corners and cripple their natural abilities. That is how you build a win now / adaptable fast moving team. Not hiring an ego maniac who boasts how smart and great he is and wants it done HIS way no matter what the talent he is given will perform best at doing. You need a staff that are adaptable and have a proven history of adapting their game plan to the tools they are given rather than expect to be given new and different tools. FA and the draft should be used to tweak and refine your roster, not to completely rebuild it after yet another major tear-down.

I just hope D.Lee is CJ's best buddy and spends 50% of his day coaching up CJ to become the best he can be this year.Don't waste too much effort on EJ. He met his ceiling a long time ago and hit it hard enough to require the concussion protocol.