Buftex

I actually think Marino, or "Marion" if you must, is pretty decent as an NFL analyst. He was best on "Inside the NFL", before it left HBO for Showtime.

I am not sure when the NFL banned players and/or coaches from smoking on the field, but I do remember, getting to a game early one Sunday in 1984, and head coach Kay Stephenson was puffing away watching warm-ups. I had never seen that beofore, though I know it was a common thing in the 60's and 70's.

It's only April 23rd, and I am officially OD'd on the topic of Tyler Thigpen...the majority here seem to think he sucks, really, really sucks...as in blows...while, admittedly, I didn't see every pre-season game of his, what I saw, him playing with mostly third stringers, and guys who didn't make the team, I thought he looked pretty decent... As I remember, the Bills offense moved the ball pretty well, but struggled to score in the red zone...oh well, pre-season, so I thought. Then, he threw about 10 passes in the regular season, and, unfortunately, was caught on camera with the ball hitting him in the head on the sideline...now, Tyler Thigpen has, for Bills fans, become an obsessive worry...all based on a tiny sample size, and not taking into account that Thigpen had no off-season workouts with the Bills... I can't wait until the draft, so we have a fresh new batch of chum to feed on...

So, I suspect that last night's episode is going to be one that people have mixed feelings about... experimental storytelling...I liked it... Roger on acid, Peggy's ****ty day, and Don and Megans' marriage woes... I think this show is headed into some very dark places. I was wondering last week, if the guy falling out of the window at during the opneing scene was going to end up being Pete (so proud of his new office with the window), Layne... but you realize, nobody on this show is very happy...unless they are on acid!

Another film that my buddy, Andy, wrote the screenplay for...I will say of Burton, he has made some great movies, but, more and more, he makes movies that look great, but aren't as satisfying as his better stuff. His "Planet Of the Apes" re-make was such a huge disappointment to me...because it was Burton, I had such high expectations. It looked great, but, IMO, had an awful screenplay (or should I say "screenplay") and wasn't terribly well directed...it was a big mess. As a huge fanatic of the original POA films, the only redeeming thing abou it, beyond the makeup, was the sort of "inside" jokes that referred to the original films. I suspect I would feel the same about the new "Dark Shadows" flick, if I hadn't already determined that I won't see it. Unless, of course, my gf insists...she seems to have no interest so far.

And I am old enough to remember when NFL Draft coverage meant turing on the 6pm news, finding out who the Bills picked in the first round, from Chuck Healey...reading the front page of the Couriour Express Sports Page the next day, to find out more about the guy we picked...and reading about the other 15 rounds of the draft in the "transactions" column on the last page of the section...the good old days! Not to be repetitive, cuz while I enjoy watching the draft coverage, I don't consider myself a "draft-nik", I was always interested in watching the Bills first pick, live, with other Bills fans, and then would just tune in and out the rest of the weekend to see what was going on...moving the first round Thursday night pretty much killed my desire/need to watch it live...used to look forward to meeting up with other Bills fans in town on Saturday morning for those early picks...but I really don't want to devote the early part of my Saturday to see who the Bills will pick in rounds 5-7... I think Goodell screwed up a good thing, just for the sake of putting his imprint on it... Or maybe I am just a cranky old !@#$ who is sick of always having to deal with change, and am less likely to for something as, ultimately, trivial as the NFL draft coverage...after the first round or two, I usually know little about the players picked. Now where is my morning newspapaer?

Agree with you there Jim...Big Ben may be a big jerk, but I would have killed to see him in a Bills uniform...he gets a lot of props for being "tough", but for such a big dude at that position, he is amazingly nimble. His fundamentals are not always solid, but like McNabb at his best, he can get away with it because he is so strong, and tough. I suspect, also like McNabb, as he gets more banged up, he is going to have to keep himself in better shape to maintain that level as he gets older. It is the whole, "the bigger they are, the bigger they fall" theory.

I don't mean this as a knock on you Adam, but I have noticed the last couple of years, it has become sort of fashionable to kind of knock all of the Bills "greats" from those Super Bowl teams...particularly Jim Kelly and Andre Reed...for about the last three years, I have been spending off hours transferring old Bills games from that era, from VHS to DVD (I got no life)...I can tell you, from 1988-1993, at least, there were not a lot of QB's in the NFL that you could say were better than Jim Kelly... I think seeing those games now, especially with all the dreck that has followed, I don't really see the "serious flaws" in reading defenses. That guy was in control of that offense, and knew where everyone was, and where they were supposed to be. When he had problems, I don't think, most of the time,they stemmed from not being able to read defenses as much as being stubborn enough to think that he could make any throw. And he really did exude a confidence that few Bills since have had, save, perhaps, Doug Flutie.

McNabb was a great athlete, great college QB, and a very good basketball player. But lets be honest...he did allow himself to get fat and happy, especially in later in his career...early on he was able to rely on his athletisism to overcome some problems with his fundamentals, but as he got older (and that is no sin, it happens to everyone), I would contend he didn't keep himself in tip-top shape, and his game suffered for it. I still remember watching that Super Bowl live...my buddies and I were all pulling for the Eagles...that last drive, he just looked gassed, and like he was moving in slow motion, as time was just ticking off the clock...and this was before TO came out and said anything about it. Now, Jimbo may have been guilty of getting a little puffy in his later years too, but his game didn't erode so badly that he hung on too far past his better days. McNabb could have been even better than he was, I think. The last few off seasons he would come out and say he was "feeling better than he has in years", "best shape of my career"....only to lumber his way through the season.

C.Biscuit, I normally agree with you on football stuff, but you are kind of losing me here...what are you basing this opinon on? Keep in mind, I agree with you, Donovan McNabb was a very good NFL QB...and I am not just blowing smoke...the only college football jersey I have ever owned is a McNabb jeresy. I would think you would know by now, you really can't make these kinds of arguments based solely on stats, particularly when comparing players from different eras. You can say that Bradshaw played with two HOF receivers, but another person can argue that neither of those receivers belongs in the HOF, based on their stats... As cliche as it is, you are what you do, when it comes to sports...which is why, I suspect, we all love them so much. McNabb may be a better athlete than Terry Bradshaw, but not a better QB. I think you are going to lose that argument 99.9% of the time, outside of Philadelphia. As for Kelly vs McNabb, Donovan wins the stat wars...but, I would argue, Kelly was far from a slouch, and had more of the "intagibles" that Donovan McNabb seemed to lack....also, McNabb had a huge advantage, for the bulk of his career, in that his teams, had better defensese than Kelly's did...as much as that pains me to say. During Kelly's time in Buffalo, the defense was top notch in 1988, and while not awful (like we have seen so much of in the last decade) but not consistantly great either. And while we think of the K-Gun offense as being a pass happy Offense, it's success was really predicated on running the ball effectively in obvious passing situations...and, Kelly was calling those shots. I am really not trying to run McNabb down, because I do think he was one of the better QB's of his time...but he had some pretty glaring weaknesses too. Maybe it was the "Mr Nice Guy" image he always so carefully cultivated, but he didn't always seem to "have" his team...TO was a punk in Philly, but it never should have gotten as out of hand as it did. To my knowledge, Donovan has not officially retired, just nobody is ringing his phone. Honestly, his skills started declining about three seasons ago...Shanahan may have been a jackass, but I don't think blaming the coach for his inability to adapt to a new offense, makes him look very good. Shanahan didn't trade for him because he wanted to torture him, and lose a bunch of games. Donovan was awful with Washington. And he wasn't great his last couple of years in Philly. And throughout his career, he had multiple game "funks" that most of the greats didin't have. His fundamentals would break down...and he had a JP Losman-like knack for short hopping passes in big games, at the wrong time.

I guess I will add my redundant 2-cents, but Berry is delusional. If you look at the replay, how can he claim that the block (legal) was away from the play? When Stevie blocks him, he is facing Berry, not Fred Jackson, who is the ball carrier...Johnson is making a good block, on the chance that Freddie breaks the run, to the end zone. If Freddie makes it past that last defender who brings him down, and Stevie doesn't block Berry, then Berry tackles Freddie, and prevents him from scoring a touchdown...they have been playing football that way for about a 100 years. I used to like Berry, but what a freaking' jerk. On top of that, think about it. It is one thing for a defensive coach to encourage his players to injure offensive players (and I have my serious doubts that the Saints are not the only team guilty of this stuff), but how many offensive coaches are going to be telling their #1 receiver to worry about injuring defensive players? That is not part of their job...

Hmmm...not sure if I completely agree with this. The grocery bagging story obviously got a lot of run, but Warner was phenominaly good for a few scattered seasons, went to 2 Super Bowls, and won one. What would most likely keep him out, IMO, whether it was circumstance (wasted time with the NY Giants, for instance) or injury, he didn't have a block of 4 to 6 years of being "phenominal" (I am using that word, for lack of a better word, to mean upper tier) in a row...his success was scattered over a long time...he wasn't a high draft pick, like McNabb, so little was expected from him at the outset of his career...he was fortunate to make a roster...then he got thrust into a starting role because of an injury, performed at a very high level for two seasons in St Louis, before being mostly injured for two years...St Louis assumed he was washed up at that point...so the Giants pikced him up to mentor Eli...he played a bit, but didn't perform well, on a pretty weak Giants team. Went to an even worse Arizona team....but when they added pieces around him, he ended his career at a phenominal level... To me, McNabb problem, when compared to Warner (keeping in mind, I liked McNabb, but I am finding him annoying at this point in his career), Donovan played on more consistantly talented teams, won a lot of games in Philly, but, unfortunately, played a prominent role in too many of their biggest losses.

Ms. Pelosi is neither a mod or a rocker...she is a mocker.

I was so hoping the Bills would be opening up against New England in Orchard Park this year...they aren't going to know what hit them...I hope!

When I woke up this morning, I turned on the local sports talk radio station, where they are normally talking about nothing I care about...but Bucky Godboldt (former Longhorns assistant coach, and radio personality here in Austin) was talking about "partying with Jim Kelly, back in Miami"..."He was a hell of a partier, and a hell of a football player...who the hell does Donovan McNabb think he is, comparing himself to Jim Kelly?" So, I do a search, and find this article...though I see no mention of McNabb himself comparing his career to Kelly's, some of his statements are absurd. And, I will admit, I was a huge McNabb fan at one time...but he is not a Hall Of Famer...unless Vinny Testeverde and Drew Bledsoe make it...IMO. What do you think? http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8286a1a0/article/donovan-mcnabb-believes-hes-a-hall-of-famer

I am not generally in favor of trading up in the first round, for a wide receiver, but where do you think Blackmon gets picked? I am no expert, but to me, it seems like Luck, Griffin, Kallil go #1, 2 and 3...would Cleveland pick Blackmon? Or would the pick Richardson? I am thinking they go with Richardson, or, god forbid, Tanneyhill...would love to see the Bills get Blackmon...it just seems like Cleveland might be willing to trade that pick at #4. But what do I know...

I love gallows humor! My family has survived on it for generations! Probably won't share it with my buddy, though I am sure he would get a chuckle out of it too!

His wife mentioned it to me on the phone the other day...we were discussing "Mad Men" from that week (we are all big fans). I guess he didn't really know her, and, in fact, since I posted this, he told me the girl murdered, was actually his mothers cousin, so I guess that makes her his second cousin? Just odd, all the hours we have spent bullshitting over the years about everything under the sun, it just never came up. Life is full of surprises...sometimes ****ty ones!

When I said he is painting himself into a corner, I wasn't referring exclusively to his donor speech..but to his whole run for the GOP nomination. And we all know what the Ryan plan is. In reality, it seems like many are taking the "anybody but Obama" attitude that they were so critical of Democrats for taking, back in the 2004 elections, as it pertained to Bush.

Sorry dude, not ignoring you...I just can't get this link to open.

Fair enough. And you bring up good points. But what is so troubling, to me, about Romney, his track record (some of which I admire, I don't hate the guy) is so inchoerent with the things he says now, trying to win an election. And I get,like I said to Chef, a lot of it is just playing politics. But he is painting himself into a pretty tight corner, as far as I am concerned. Romney reportedly gave a doozey of a speech a few nights ago, to his largest donors, where he made some pretty big promises about new tax loopholes, cutting programs like HUD (wasn't that his daddy's old outfit?), making further cuts in education...he seems to adhere to the "trickle down" theory, which has never really worked. I am not against cutting federal programs, and making government more efficient. The social "safety net" for the poor represents a relatively small part of our economy. I am sure there are cuts that can be made, and I am sure there are abuses...but I am also sure abuses exist, and cuts can be made elsewhere as well. Seeing and hearing the fervor of the audiences at the GOP debates when the topic of the poor, social programs (whatever term you want to use for these things, they all have their slanted implications, one way or antoher), was, frankly, disgusting. There seems to be this perception that anyone who receives government assistance is a no good, free-loader, drug addict...except for themselves, and anyone in their families who receive benefits of any kind. And, it wasn't that long ago that universal healthcare was a Republican tenet. Nixon was a big proponent...it might be a B word to get it implemented (and maybe this is the wrong time), but would have a positive long range impact on the economy in the long run...you know, doing what is needed, not necessarily what is wanted. Something I read somewhere (sorry, can't remember the source, though I am sure someone will try to get me to find it!) said that one third of meidical expenses incurred in the US are done so by the uninsured. Which directly affects the cost of services that we all pay, and the cost of health inusurace for those who have insurance. So, in effect, healthcare in the US, pre-Obamacare, is one of the costlier entitlement programs out there.

Shamefull when an adult male makes a big deal out of his own birthday!

That says more about the sad state of politics than it does any one candidate. Are you going to tell me that Barrack Obama hasn't taken more than his fare share of grief for his religion, or alleged religion from the right leaning social media outlets, and bloggers? I am not saying it is right, but lets' be fair about this. Religion has played an absurd amount of importance in American presidential politics for the last 40 years or so... Incidentally, if you look at the link you posted, nearly every article referenced (at least on the first page) is about a Republican or evangelical questioning whether Romney's religion makes him a Christian, or how he is "going to have to address his Mormonism" Like I said, I haven't heard one negative word about Romney being a Mormon from any prominent Democrat. If this does become one of the fairytale "Obama devisive" issues, chances are, it will come from the Republicans...

So you voted for Johh Kerry? Chef, these arguments can be twisted around to make any point. I think, sometimes, that is why so many of you keep your posts short and sweet, so as not to reveal much about what you think, but only how wrong you think others are. I thought it was you (maybe it was LA, or somebody else) who hailed a **** storm of indignity on me for using the term, and accepting, that so much of what we argue about "playing politics". I get the difference, and I understand the subtlties. I get it, and I understand that Obama has not been a complete success (and I can't think of any who have been, except Ronald Reagan, who has now been deified by everyone), but I also don't see him as the complete, utter failure that you do. Yes, I want the economy to be strong, but I don't necessarily want it to come at the cost of the things that Romney and his ilk consider to be unimportant or trivial. I know, everyone here is a highly focused, type-A, boot-straps guy who never makes any mistake, or has a lapse in judgement that they can't fix themselves. But what the hell do you guys want to do with everyone who isn't so blessed as you with supreme confidence every step of the way? Could our education system be any more fugged up? The great Ryan plan, which seems to have become the new Republican bible can find endless social services to cut, but honeslty, can't find any bloat in our military? Really? Jump all over Obama for his "Buffet Plan", but turn their eyes to the fact that much of what Ryan proposes isn't really going to put much of a dent in the debt either...but it will make a few people happier, and make a lot of lifes all that much harder. There are lots of people in this country, many who don't likely fit the profile of the typical TBD dweller...what do you want to do with them? Kill them? Lock them up in jail? Let everyone die? I respect your conviction...I have no problem with you voting for Mitt Romney, or anyone else. That goes for anyone here. But why is it so difficult for some to see that not everyone has the same priorities as they do? What makes the needs or desires of some so much more important than the needs or desires of others? I don't identify myself as a "progressive", that seems to be something LA has bestowed upon me. I honestly don't even know what that term means, politically. As you define "progressive", I just don't think I (or anyone I know) really fits into that. What is the opposite of a "progressive"? A "regressive"? You know, the ones who insist that any cuts in military bloat will "weaken the empire", or leave us vulnerable, or paying any additional taxes will only discourage them from wanting to do business in America?

We shall see...maybe we are both living in a bubble? I can't really argue with anything you are saying, because it is all conjecture. Flip-flopping, and failing are not necessarily the same thing. And believe me, I know Obama has had plenty of failures...I am not blind to that. And I won't deny that he has had some flip-flops. But Romney has flip-flopped over the years on, basically, every core belief that a politician can espouse an opinon on...and that is not an exaggeration. The only thing he has been consitstant on is his love of money, and how to make it. Maybe that is enough? I don't know. One thing I do find curious though, from what you said, was the thing about Mormons. I have not heard one (serious) Democrat, or "progressive" mention Romney's Mormon faith as an issue...in fact, the only person I heard bring it up, was fellow Republican/Mormon Orrin Hatch, just a week or two ago....saying "Obama might try to use Romney's religion against him", because, he implies, Obama will stoop to anything. This from the same party that has over and over again condescendingly said "Well, I will take the presidents' word that he is a Christian, but with a name like Barrakc Hussain Obama, you have to wonder...and wasn't his father a Muslim, etc etc". Things like that are why people like me find it so incredulous when people on your side rail on about how Obama is so "divisive"...like Obama invented the notion of "wedge" politics.