Grant

You're trying to tell me the red Bucs jersey looks nothing like the red Falcons jersey? Yeah, okay. They just happen to share red uniforms with white letters and black trim. But they look nothing alike. Not at all.

Right, so that addition of red definitely makes the two uniforms COMPLETELY ABSOLUTELY dissimilar. How silly of me to observe that the throwback uniform resembles the Colts uniform. Without you astutely pointing out that the Bills jersey had RED in it (I'd never noticed before, so I appreciate it), I would've NEVER seen the folly of my ways. Colts Uni Bills Throwback And it definitely looks nothing like the old Giants uniform... Giants Uni

Yeah, you're right. Still, they were never very distinctive and I still maintain that they look similar to the Colts uniforms. Perhaps a better way to make them slightly more unique would be to make them a darker blue?

I disagree, I think the throwbacks actually look considerably worse than the actual 60s vintage ones and the end result was that the uniform looks a lot like the Colts'. Maybe they could've darkened the blue even more and made it the same navy blue as the current official jersey?

Ditto for Mann's cover of Dylan's "Quinn the Eskimo"

You're completely missing the point of the cover song (the "redo," as you put it). The idea isn't to merely mimic or imitate the original song, but to take what is already there in terms of lyrics and a general idea of the melody and to re-imagine it and put a different spin on it. The same applies to film. If you're going to just be a poor imitation of the original (such as 1998's Psycho remake), then why bother? The idea is to make it fresh, make it new, and to also stay faithful to the intended spirit.

I wasn't a huge fan of Burton's Planet of the Apes, but for different reasons. Unlike Max Fischer of Rushmore here, I think remakes are better when they take the original material in a completely different direction and re-imagine it rather than merely re-hash it. So, the criticism that the film doesn't mimic the original is baseless, if you ask me. Burton's Planet of the Apes failed primarily because it was an incoherent mess and gave me no reason to be at all interested in the actions occuring on screen. On the other hand, I am looking forward to Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory which definitely seems to be putting a unique spin on the tale and is famously more faithful to author Dahl's vision.

Who cares? He's a kicker, and he realistically has very little chance of being looked at as more than camp fodder. Kickers don't really need "fire in the belly," just a powerful leg and accuracy.

That's a really good point. The nostalgia trip (which, I'll point out, includes the recent huge run on biopics of successful American people such as Ray; The Aviator; the ones about Cole Porter and Bobby Darin; the upcoming Cinderalla Man; Ali; and however many more) is definitely fueled by an uncertain political climate and the fallout of post-9/11 America. This is something very evident throughout film history - whenever the country is at an uncertain point, the films of the period tend to look back at an "easier" time (more accurately, what is perceived as an easier time). For example, during the Vietnam war, Hollywood began to produce a lot of films about the country's more successful war effort in World War II.

There doesn't need to be an A-Team movie, but there will be - and it will do decently, I'll bet - because it has a built-in audience. This is something the entertainment industry loves. Look at the summer blockbuster movies: War of the Worlds (remake), Batman Begins (comic book adaptation), Star Wars (sequel), Longest Yard (remake), Bewitched (remake), The Dukes of Hazzard (remake), Fantasic Four (comic book adaptation). How many CSIs are there on television? How many other similar crime dramas? How many hospital dramas? People love things they're familiar with, and this is true in much more than merely the entertainment industry, too. And the funny thing is, there's plenty of people that will post in this thread and say "oh, what a stupid idea" but I'd bet at least half of those people will see the movie anyway. It reminds me of something Johnny Carson once said. It was something like: You ask a person on a street what's wrong with television and he'll say 'oh, well, there's too much crap, too much fluff; we need more news, and more culture, and more originality' because he doesn't want to sound like a dummy. But he'll go home and he'll watch that crap and he'll watch that fluff because 'there's nothing else on.'

Proof: http://entertainment.tv.yahoo.com/entnews/...1586788000.html

Yeah, and check out the dude in the red shirt on the right - I think he probably wears a bigger bra than this low self-esteem chick. Anyway, pretending that it was that picture all along makes reading this thread way more amusing.

I don't think it's fair to compare Brady's deal with Mike Williams' deal, as some have pointed out: although both positions receive huge contracts, Williams received his money purely because of when we picked him and Brady received his contracts based on his proven value to the team. I think a better comparison would be Brady's contract versus someone like Peyton Manning's contract (actually, it might be more fun to compare Brady to Bledsoe again in this department). As much as people want to hate Brady because, uh, he wins (or more correctly "is part of a winning team") - his willingness to sign well below his relative value speaks volumes of his dedication to winning games and Buffalo would be lucky to have a player of his caliber.

Still, I think most of us would exchange a slightly less spectacular deep ball for a higher level of pocket awareness.

This is like that "bet" again, huh? The great thing about this post is how your last sentence is one of the most ironic things of all time. I don't know how anyone takes you seriously. Well, I basically agree with you and I do think Moulds will restructure, but it'll be more because Moulds' value has dropped in the past two seasons when he has been only "good" instead of "dominating." You've got to wonder if Moulds still thinks staying with Buffalo was a good decision for him personally - we still haven't been to the playoffs since '99 and he's been through how many quarterback changes? Still, you've got to give him credit for it on some level and Moulds is still in the top 10ish receivers in the league.

Would you blame "them"?

To be fair, The Simpsons died as fast as Terri Schiavo. And it's still going! Regarding Chapelle's Show, yeah, this comes as no surprise. The third season has been in limbo for quite a while now. Rumor has it the biggest holdup is writer's block, tension between writers on whether to push for slightly more sophisticated humor or to keep aiming for the college male demographic and also supposedly conflicts on whether or not Chappelle himself wants to continue the show himself anymore.

Hah, I dunno. It doesn't seem like the kid said anything worse in spirit (maybe in actual words, but they're only words) than the psychotic Ann Coulter would. They deserve each other. ;D

Exactly. Leading into the 2001 season, the local press fellated Rob Johnson just as much as they're doing to Losman now. RJ was known as a gym rat, had a great work ethic, and the coaches at the time had to literally kick RJ out of the complex at night so they could go home. Also, RJ looked great in the mini camps leading into that season, too, if I recall correctly. And RJ certainly had the physical tools, no doubt about it, but he couldn't do Poops McGee when he was under pressure. It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway: I don't think Losman is going to be "another RJ." Merely that the Buffalo News is incredibly fickle and you can't really judge a player until you've seen them under real pressure.

Something I've learned working in radio is how little creative control the on-air talent actually has. Some program directors are more leniant than others, but especially in a talk format, they definitly dictate the sort of things you do.

It's important to remember how important some of our UDFAs were last year. So, yeah, this year's draft does seem pretty disappointing right now but ... well, you never know. And that's really the only way to think about it at this point. You never know.

Oh, of course. Whether or not Dan Brown's objective (and what exactly his objective actually is is debatable) was realized or not is irrelevent, really. But you're correct in your statement although we don't exactly see eye to eye. First - the statement in bold is the sort of thing that prompted this debate. Just FYI. Second - the statement in italics: I don't try to be any more obnoxious than posters were already being in this thread (this includes you, but is definitely not exclusive to you) before I came. But yeah, we're a bit closer on the subject than it appeared initially.

I can see the cheesy ad campaign now. "Tom Brady was a world champion Patriot in the NFL [clip of Brady holding up both arms in slow motion]. Now he wants to be a world champion patriot for you [clip of Brady touching a cripple, and then showing the former cripple winning a gold medal in the 100 meter dash]. Vote Brady [clip of Brady delivering five babies at once with an American flag waving in the background]."

I think I've seen a portion of this program before and I agree it was a refreshing change from the typical "Buffalo sucks, losers live there and it's snowy."

It certainly is. I don't want to sound like an AD whore, but really - everyone ought to go out and buy the first season DVD boxset. If you have any sense of humor at all, you'll definitely enjoy the show.