Cynical

Why do I get the feeling the Bills have pulled the shades, turned off the lights, unplugged the phone, and have told all the front desk people to take a message if Leach or his agent come calling. Head coach position? What head coach position? No, we're good.

Then you're screwed.

The claim seems to be he punished a player for not practicing with a concussion. If true: Good job, douche bag.

2009 hands down, IMHO. The 2001 team was terrible, but there was some rationale as to why. Salary cap restraints seriously limited what the Bills could do in FA. (IIRC, 30% of the salary was tied up in dead cap space). This years team is just flat out horrible.

Could, yes. But I do believe Texas is making a pretty strong case this year. Regardless, it should be at least another top 5 class though. It's going to be fun to be a Bama fan for the next few years.

Kind of a hard question to answer, as most schools tend to have multiple rivals. And those rivalries could be in the same division, across division lines, and even outside the conference. The SEC also allows each team to name a permanent rival in the other division, and they get to play that rival every year. Some examples: Alabama's two biggest rivals are Auburn (Iron Bowl!), and Tennessee. Auburn is in the same division, but Tenn is in the east division. Besides Bama, Auburn maintains the South's oldest rivalry with UGA. (Auburn west, UGA east) UGA has rivalries with Auburn, Tenn, Florida ("Worlds Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party"), and Georgia Tech from the ACC. Florida maintains a rivalry with Florida St. Kentucky has one with Louisville And LSU renewed an old rivalry with Tulane a couple of years ago. (FYI: Both Tulane and Georgia Tech were originally members of the SEC) So, I guess the best way to answer your question is the SEC did their best in trying to keep school rivalries by either placing them in same division, or allowing the teams to name a permanent rival from the other division they have to play every year.

What do you expect from a person who thinks an adequate slow footed RT would have been a viable replacement for LT if only the Bills did not attempt to play that pesky no-huddle.

Back at you! Hope you and your loved ones had a good one. The bolded part is something we basically both agree with. Our only difference seems to be you are taking the "yes/no (with more emphasis on yes)" approach, where I am thinking Brohm is more of an extra or bonus. The scouting report was merely a "tool" to prove a point. And you proved it with Tom Brady. You keep saying Brohm was highly touted, and would have been drafted in the first round in 2007, and was drafted in the second round in 2008. In 2008, Mike Flynn was considered nothing but camp fodder by pretty much every scouting analysis I could now find. So what does that prove now? Nothing. All those 2007 and 2008 draft and scouting reports are worthless right now. What has value now is what the players did once they hit the NFL. As "bad" as Tom Brady was coming out of college, he still made back up. The Green Bay Packers drafted both Flynn and Brohm in the same year. So neither QB had previous NFL experience. After analyzing both players, the Packers came to this conclusion: Flynn was better than Brohm, and Brohm was so bad, he was actually cut from the team. In 2009, the Packers came to same conclusion, and Brohm was once again cut from the team. That cannot be denied, and it cannot be spun. In a previous post, you stated (essentially) Brohm was not a FA pick up. Unfortunately, that is what Brohm was (more like a RFA).

Merry Christmas! Happy Holiday! Season Greetings! Etc ... To "y'all", "all a y'all", "you'n", and "yuse guys"

Nothing confusing about it. See below. Ever hear of a fluke? Atlanta D sucks and nobody has game film on this kid. The potential of a "good enough" game sounds very likely. Oh please. Like your scenario is the same situation. But to placate you: IF my second year, second round QB who was only good enough to be a third string QB came in and played 2 solid games, I would still be looking for a QB. But I would probably consider moving the third string QB to second string. I'm prejudice and you're biased. You have already set up the scenario as "can't fail". If he has "success", it's because he's good. If he fails, it was due to all the obstacles he had to face. I could care less how highly touted he was coming out of college. That was 2 years ago. And he was so highly touted he failed to beat out the un-highly touted Matt Flynn. Twice. For the second string spot. And here's Scout.com draft analysis on Brohm: Some of interesting phrases in there. "Lacks mobility. Can't move or get away from the rush." "Fool's gold?". I agree we should give him the chance to develop. Right along side another QB. Let the best man win. Sorry if I refuse to accept a 3rd string QB (or worse) should become the leader of this team based on a couple of BS games, and without fighting for it. I'm prejudice like that.

The only thing I will admit is BB is getting thrown into a effed up situation. His performance(s), regardless of how good or bad it is/they are, need to be ignored. I think the kid needs to be properly evaluated during the off season regardless of his performance, but his performance should in no way impact decisions regarding this teams personnel needs during the off season. This team needs a QB. And while you worry about "wasting a high draft pick" that doesn't pan out, I worry about this team thinking this project player is their QB of the future all because he looked "good enough" in one or two BS games.

Assuming he does start, a rational person would not even consider his performance these next two games. However, this is TSW. Brohm posts numbers similar to Trent, and we are going to have people sitting in corner rubbing one out declaring BB the answer to our prayers ("OMG. If he can perform this well now, just wait until he gets into training camp. The Bills will not have to worry about drafting a QB"). If he tanks, we will have other people screaming he's a bum, and isn't worth wasting any more time on.

I think that was the Trent Edwards offense. IIRC, AVP mentioned being able to run a more complex offense with Fitz. Ok, ok, so that means the offense now fits on the 3x5 card in 12pt font.

Fitz was 17/25 for 178 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT vs the Pats*. And in some way, one could actually make the argument Fitz out played Tom Brady (don't know how much water that would hold) Brady was 11/23 for 115 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT.

And you would still be wrong: Retraction Why does this rumor persist?

Or Brohm is completely unprepared to start. The guy has sat on a practice squad for a 1.5 years, has been a Bill for 5 weeks (6 now?), and has only been taking snaps with the scout team. As inept as the offense has looked, it can look worse.

Really? Don't remember that. I do remember something along the lines BB saying Jason Peters couldn't make his team. But then again, BB did not actually say that. Peter King did.

Making ANY judgment, good or bad, about BB will be incredibly unfair this weekend. But that never stopped anybody before. Just wait. By the time these next two games are over, there will be people declaring "BB's a bust" and "BB's the franchise". Prime example of what I was referring to: The kid has not taken a snap in live play, and you already are trying to down play any potential poor pay, and over hype any potential good play.

Still not good enough.

Yeah that's it. Couldn't be that continuity happens because the QB and HC are good. Nope. We just need to bring back Jauron, and retain Trent. Jauron and Trent just need another 5 years to prove everybody wrong.

Sorry Alpha, doesn't work that way. The kid has two games to prove he is the "franchise" or the next "never was". The people have spoken. We need to know NOW.

You did? That's interesting. I thought i just did.

And 3312 is better than 3311 or anything below it.

Or sitting on a pedestal, declaring him better than Jim Kelly.

1.) You yourself admit the adaptation was NOT complete. End of story. Everything else is irrelevant. Just because he was ahead of JP and Todd Collins still does not PROVE Trent Edwards is a starting quality QB. 2.) Pure speculation. Medical experts are divided whether PCS even exists. The ones who do think it exists admit it is hard to diagnose, and there is more than one theory as to what causes it. Trent Edwards may or may not have it, but you are discussing from the position he does suffer from it without any proof that he actually does. 3.) Simple. The reason he went from promising to inept is because he never fully adapted. Defenses are not static. Once playerB figures out how to 'stop' playerA, playerB will continue to do so until playerA adapts. 4.) The reason Fitz is on his third team and has been a backup his entire short career is he is just not good enough. Coaching has very little to do with it at this point. However, despite Fitz's shortcomings, AVP has essentially stated he can run a more complex offense with Fitz than he can with Trent. That tells me Trent is not getting "it". To put it another way, Trent is not adapting. Why let Trent go? Because his own team mates have given up on him. 'Forcing' Trent on the players will not help his situation, and may make it worse. At this point, Trent's potential upside has shrunk, and he now carries more risk. The risk being possible PCS, and player dissatisfaction in the locker room. So the question is: Is Trent's potential (being a back up QB) worth the risk (PCS, team mate dissatisfaction) he carries? IMHO, no. Not for a back up. The Bills can always find another back up QB. Here's the problem. Even medical experts cannot agree if PCS exists. As I said before, the ones that do think PCS exists admit it is hard to diagnose. And you want the Bills coaching and/or medical staff to be held accountable for "missing" it? Up to this point, you keep arguing from the point TE is (or potentially is) suffering from PCS, yet you offer no proof as such. And before you run around trying to find evidence to support your position, here is what the Mayo clinic thinks about sports related PCS: PCS Risk Factors The first sentence is true. But I would counter most regular people are not being paid hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars a year to participate in a career that is finite in length. Let me ask you a question, would you be willing to pay someone millions of dollars a year and wait 10 years for that person to or not to develop? I'll disagree with your second sentence. If you think nobody is questioning your work performance (either as an individual or as a group) on the Internet, you would be mistaken. Go to any website that offers you the opportunity to express your opinion or write your review. Pick up the local paper in any major metro area. Go to the dining section and read the reviews. The performance of the wait staff and the cooks are being opinionated.