Cynical

There is a section for it: It's called "Off The Wall".

You can spin it any way you want to, but Trent Edwards is not getting hit harder than any other QB or player today is. Edwards has been consistently injured at the collegiate and professional levels. That's a trend. He's fragile.

'widely regarded as one of the very best evaluators of QB's'? By what estimation? This has been debunked numerous times on this board (and others including non-Bills boards). Bill Walsh's record is pretty bad in fact. He was wrong about Montana (wanted Steve Fuller and Steve Dill over Montana. Later admitted someone in the 49ers organization convinced him to take Montana.) He was right about Steve Young (the only one he was right about) He was wrong about Jake Plummer (called him the next Joe Montana, "Super Bowls and everything") Wrong about Joey Harrington and David Carr. There are others, but I cannot remember them right now. And right now, Trent Edwards is looking like another failure for Walsh. This is interesting. All Trent apologists automatically assume this rep gives Trent an 'edge' somehow. I did not realize Chan's rep was built on over coming a player's chickens**t mindset. IMHO, I think people are going to be surprised how well Fitzpatrick and possibly Brohm respond to Gailey.

Actually, yes it probably could. It has more to do with torque than HP. And that would be assuming the Prius did NOT have the brake override system already in place. The Prius does, as all Toyota hybrids are supposed to have. This is what makes the Sikes claim questionable. However, it is also possible his car is an "exception" (got the wrong module, or one not properly programmed), or the reality that even electronic parts fail (even intermittently), so you will excuse me if I still do not take a side in the Sike's claim at this point.

Mistake on(by) the Lake Does anything more need to be said?

"Didn't take blame? You mean that letter I got in the mail that said, "If you have a problem with sludging, we'll cover it up to 200,000 miles" wasn't them being there for the customer?" You know why you got that letter? Because 3,400 'squeaky complainers' made Toyota aware there was problem in the first place. You know why there was a lawsuit? Because Toyota refused to accept responsibility for it's defective design. Even when they sent out a letter stating they would. So let me restate that; TOYOTA REFUSED TO HONOR IT'S OWN EXTENDED WARRANTY EVEN THOUGH THEY KNEW THEIR DESIGN CHANGE WAS THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE SLUDGING. The point is not the sludging motors, but how Toyota treated its customers. This is the company you are choosing to defend. If you think this "sudden acceleration" is recent, guess again. Toyota has been battling this issue since complaints first surfaced back in @2006. And just like the sludging motors, Toyota first tried to pin the problem on the customer. When that didn't work, then Toyota blamed the floor mats. It's only been in the past 4 months(?) that Toyota finally admitted the problem is more severe than just floor mats. For someone who claims to be a "cynic" and likes to through out the phrase "personal responsibility", where is the cynicism against Toyota (and it's desire to protect it's bottom dollar). But go ahead. Since your car has never had any problem, remain ignorant. Toyota loves you for it!

You're right. You have owned your car for 11 years and never had a problem. Therefore, Toyota has done nothing wrong to anybody. Ever. Ignorance is bliss.

I think this is the big thing. They either want a new car or are "willing" to settle out of court. Funny thing, if they settle, watch how fast they keep the 'dangerous' car.

I prefer it on a Jewish type rye with pumpernickel being a close second. I was thinking about doing a pizza for lunch, I may now have to reconsider.

You really need to do some research regarding Toyota and the engine sludge problem. Your letter (and others like it) was a PR move. In 2002, Toyota finally admitted receiving 3,400 complaints regarding sludged up motors, and sent out letters extending the warranty on those vehicle lines. Too bad Toyota refused to honor their own extended warranty. Engine sludged up? Owner's fault. Period. Made no difference when the engine crapped out. Made no difference what documentation existed. Made no difference who maintained the vehicle (Toyota was declining claims even though Toyota dealerships did all the service on the vehicle). On message and technical boards, Toyota technicians talked about how the sludge was "different". Normal sludge (due to lack of maintenance) is tar like (black, thick, and sticky). The sludge in the Toyota models was more gelatin like, and was more of a gray or white color.

Don't know when you lived there, but at some point in the early to mid 80's, the state changed the automobile safety inspection requirement to once a year. Prior to that, the state required all autos to be inspected twice a year. Talk about a PITA.

I am not defending any position here, but this writers analysis is completely laughable. Furthermore, using this writers example (a stationary vehicle) in defending a vehicle in motion is dubious. First, this statement: "The experience seared in a lesson in basic automobile physics: brakes are always more powerful than engines, even when they have 500 cubic inches (8.2 liters)." is trumped by this statement, and proves the first statement incorrect: "The left rear wheel lit up in a screeching howl; the car was soon engulfed in a cloud of acrid smoke." How does the 2nd statement prove the the 1st incorrect? The left rear tire "lit up in screeching howl" (a/k/a "spinning") which means the brakes on left rear FAILED. Secondly, keeping a stopped car from moving is different than stopping a moving car. Stating the obvious, brakes use friction to convert the motion of the car into heat. A stationary car's brake system is not generating heat, even when the brakes are firmly applied, because simply put, the car is not moving. A moving vehicle's brake system does generate heat when the brakes are applied, and the heat, if not properly dissipated, causes havoc in a brake system. The heat can boil the brake fluid (as Cincy pointed out), and can change the composition of the brake pad and rotors. Once the composition of the pad is changed, the performance of the system will continue on a downward spiral until failure. Actually, no. What's missing is understanding the basics of how automobiles and their sub systems work. Then there's the difference of how electrical motors develop power and torque as compared to gas motors.

Congrats. Oh ... wait ...

Reference: Dockery, Derrick and Owens, Terrell

Also didn't realize the Yankees did it dealing with a salary cap.

You must have missed the TD era. As for Ralph's "cheapness", feel free to research this board. There are/were numerous threads that debunks that nonsense. As MattyT points out, take a breath.

Did you not hear/read Nix's comments after he agreed to become the GM? To paraphrase, free agency was not the way to build a team. He was not going to chase high profile FA. The impression I got was the Bills will sign low profile FA to provide depth and to fill the occasional hole. I have no expectation the Bills will make a big splash in free agency this year. The TD era is firmly behind us.

I worked with a guy like that. The dude was even on meds to help control his temper. I got along with him fairly well, but was always conscious that even a joke taken the wrong way could set him off.

You claim a picture is worth a "thousand words", but pictures are like stats. They only represent a point in time, and can be misleading, especially when used by themselves or with bad supporting data. Did that picture tell you that fat, lazy bastard can dunk a basketball? Even when he was heavier than he was in the picture? But if you are going to throw around cliches, here's one: Don't judge a book by it's cover.

Just because Levitre was a decent guard, that does not automatically mean he will be a decent tackle. Thus, moving him to OT creates a giant question mark at the position.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but until Trent actually makes it to the regular season this year, Trent has had 3 OC in 3 years. Even that stat is dubious because after Fairchild, each OC was promoted from within in order to promote continuity. Edwards has been working with the same basic offense for all 3 years. The offensive line is just the latest in a long line of "excuses" for Trentative. Yes, the line blew. But the line also blew for Fitzpatrick. Actually, if you watch his play pre-concussion, his performance was nothing to write home about. WTF does Sam Wyche have to do with Edwards? Wyche never coached Edwards at the NFL level. And Jauron, did in fact have QB coaches. Turk was the QB coach under Fairchild during Edwards first year. Turk was promoted to OC (in order to maintain continuity!), and AVP was promoted from offensive QC to QB coach for Edwards second year. During Edwards third year, AVP was promoted to OC (because Turk refused to give Jauron a "pop warner" offense) while still maintaining the QB coach title. Of course you are not a Trent apologist. You just distorted Edwards past in order to justify keeping him, to give him yet "one more chance".

Hitting the glue a little late today, eh? Bell a superb "athlete"? The Bills have a better chance of converting Bell to tight end than leaving him on the Oline.

Part of the problem is your claim of "not as dire", while you freely admit there are "ifs" involved. The other part is the number of "ifs" involved. Let's look at your desired line up; LT - Stud (Draft, FA) LG - Incognito C- Hangartner RG - Wood RT - Levitre Even with this line up, you assumed Incognito is resigned and Woods will be ready to go. You are also assuming (but did not mention) Levitre can play RT, and you are assuming the Bills will acquire a stud LT (like somehow those are just real easy to locate) That 4 assumptions impacting 4 positions. So when we re-look at your 'desired' line up with the "ifs" (represented by "?") in place: LT - Stud (Draft, FA)(?) LG - Incognito(?) C- Hangartner RG - Wood(?) RT - Levitre(?) Based on that, the only position that a question mark (or if) is not involved is the center. If 50% of your "ifs" pan out, 2 still did not. This O-line is farther away than you wish it to be.

He didn't look too bad? The guy was terrible. On running plays, did he even get a push? On passing plays, speed rushers blew past him, and power rushers shoved him back with ease. The guy made back up D-Linemen look like competent starters. There is a good reason why he was considered a project player.

Yes, I do expect Nix to consider Cody hasn't played on obvious passing downs. Cody is a prototypical NT that played in a 3-4 D. Feel free to refresh my memory on the number of times Big Ted was in the lineup on obvious passing downs. Well, DUH! Here's a clue: BEING OVERWEIGHT IS NOT A DETERMINANT OF MOTIVATION If we followed that logic, then we could say the following: "All black birds are birds, therefore, all birds are probably black." You and I both know that is load of crap. When the Bills drafted Chris Ellis, there were issues regarding his motivation and character. From the time he has been drafted to this point in time now, I have never heard weight being an issue for Ellis. Therefore, we can assume he has no problem in maintaining his weight, but just refuses to put forth the effort that would make him more productive at the NFL level. When Andre Smith came out, he had a weight issue. But there were other issues regarding his attitude and his motivation. Even Saban stated Smith needed a lot of motivation to play. In both of those cases, there were issues regarding those players that had nothing to do with weight. And in Cody's case, what do you have? Weight. Nothing else. Where is the underlying attitude/character red flag in Cody's case? So let me get this straight. Terrence Cody wanted to play on passing downs. Saban said he needed to achieve weight xxx in order for that to happen. Terrence Cody "failed" to achieve that goal. Therefore: Cody is unmotivated. So you know for a fact Terrence said 'screw it' and gave up? Or is it more likely Cody attempted to reach said goal but couldn't? There is a difference in those two answers. Let me just say for the record, I am not advocating for the Bills to draft him in the first round. I am not even advocating for the Bills to draft him early in the second round. But if the Bills can grab him in the third, they should do so without hesitation.