DCgirl

Yes - I think ESPN's rankings generally have more credibility (as much as any ranking can have "credibility") but I still look at Prisco's and Dr. Z's just for fun. I guess I shouldn't read Prisco's since he usually states really dumb and/or arbitrary reasons for his rankings but I can't help it - guess I'm a masochist.

Okay, I know rankings are meaningless and I have strongly disliked Pete Prisco for the last several years generally but his rankings this week really irk me. He has us ranked below the Seahawks, Rams and Giants. The Seahawks I can give a pass even though we just embarassed them in their own house because they do have a better record than us (albeit by playing the likes of the Cardinals and 49'ers twice and void of a win against a team with a winning record). But the Rams and Giants have the SAME record as us - the Rams were blown out by us last week and blown out by the Packers this week and the Giants just lost as well. It's pretty annoying that he would rank us below those teams knowing how much tougher the AFC is then the NFC. Anyway, just wanted to vent. Prisco's Rankings

I am a huge Winfield fan because he always works hard on the field (I remember a couple of tackles where he left his receiver on one side of the field to sprint to the other side to make the tackle). He was our leading tackler for many of the years he was here. And I would have loved to keep him despite his hands of stone. But I knew when we did not sign him BEFORE his last season began that there was no way we could keep him. And I don't think he was worth what Minn. paid him. But I still wish him lots of success (as long as we are not facing Minn.) He was my favorite Bills player since the Jim Kelly era.

I don't think there are many Bills fans who would say they "know" we are making the playoffs. I think that a lot of Bills fans just want to enjoy a win even if our playoff chances for this year are remote. Isn't it more fun to enjoy the games we win than to complain after every game - win or lose?

Yeah - I preferred him to Clements as well - although not for the $$ he got. I hate to say I was thinking during the game when McGee was getting fried that I really missed AW. Of course, that wasn't fair since Vincent is really the guy that should be in there - the Bills organization didn't expect McGee to take AW's place.

Ok - after seeing this thread - I had to go back to read the currency thread (which I initially missed). It was very interesting! Speaking from a female perspective, I have to say NJSue sounds nuts. I work with a girl who seems like her - flies off the handle at the littlest things. Anyway, just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents.

I actually didn't think his email was so bad (and I hate Michael Moore). He admitted the Republicans kicked their *ss and talked about the positives and what they could do for the next election. I'm an independent so I like having two viable candidates for vote for (I felt like I had none in this election). If both the Democrats and Republicans move to the center with their next candidate - I would be happy.

I was about to respond - wow you have really done a 180 on Bledsoe! Then I realized that you are Peter not Pete. Ok - that makes more sense.

You said the provisionals in Pa "were not likely to favor Bush." I agree. Similarly, the provisionals in Ohio "were not likely" to go to Kerry at a 93% or higher rate. But the networks were being overly cautious on Ohio. Part of this is because the media is liberal and despite its best efforts - this seeps into their decisions. The other part is that Ohio decided the race whereas Pennsylvania did not at the time it was called. They didn't know how many provisionals were outstanding in Ohio but apparently, they don't know how many provisionals are outstanding in Pennsylvania either. I think there is no chance either will change the outcome, I just think it is funny that Ohio and Pennsylvania were almost identical but were treated very differently.

I agree that we should not overturn Roe v. Wade now but I was just referencing the fact that I disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision to stick its nose in this many years ago. Now we have litmus tests for judges and instead of evaluating a potential judge's merits - we want to know his or her view on abortion. Abortion should have been a state issue - the Justices should not have inserted the right to an abortion in the Constitution. I think those of us who believed you have a right to an abortion should have lobbied in each state to get that right. Then it would be less likely that we would have these mass protests against abortion. I think this is the problem with some Democrats (I always told this to my very liberal Democrat friend). They believe that everyone should at Z. Currently they think everyone is at A. So they want to bring people over to Z as quickly as possible. I also believe that Z is the correct position. But I think people will be more likely to resist and object if you just try to throw them over to Z. You need to convince them of B first, then C, and so on. Yes - it's a much slower process but I think when you try to impose your beliefs on others - you end up just having them dig their heels in and resist. Secondly, the great thing about states is that not all of them have to be the same. You can always vote with your feet and move. I live in D.C. - a very liberal area. I grew up in a rural town in Virginia and would never want to move back. My friends in D.C. have very different beliefs and positions than the people in my hometown. But I don't think that means my hometown should be forced to change its laws just because people in D.C. think they are intellectually superior. That is why we have a democracy. Now perhaps some think a government would run better if only the elitists made the laws. But that is not the government in America and personally, I think democracy is a better form of government - it takes into account everyone's views not just a select few.

Actually, I disagree with Roe v. Wade. That is what I mean about the federal government controlling states (in this case a federal court). I believe that Democrats would be better at making social changes if they lobbied state legislatures to change state laws. Yes, that would take much longer and a lot more effort than trying to get the federal courts to rule your way - but to me, you would have much more credibility that way. I do not like how Democrats try to impose their social views on everyone even though I agree with those social views. Two things here. I voted for Bush in 2000 because I thought he would be a fiscal conservative. He proved me wrong and that is why I voted for Kerry this time around. Even the Economist endorsed Kerry (with a heavy heart it said). However, I did not believe for a second that Kerry was only going to repeal the tax cuts for the wealthy. And to be honest, I agree with repealing the tax cuts. I don't think they were needed. But Kerry also wanted to increase spending (national health care, prescription drugs, social security, etc.). If the Democrats would be more fiscally responsible (like Clinton), I think they would have a better shot. You are right that they will never get the religious right but I don't think they need the religious right.

No I think he would then be elected. The electoral college is what matters - not what candidates say. But of course, I think the reason Kerry conceded was that he realized it was mathematically impossible to win. He would have had to win 80-93% IF all of the provisional ballots in Ohio are valid (which they won't be). Also this is somewhat dumb to hinge everything on Ohio because Kerry won Pennsylvania by the same margin (and number of votes - 130,000) that Bush won Ohio and yet the networks all easily called Pennsylvania for Kerry without counting the "provisional ballots." I think they just didn't call Ohio because it was basically the last swing state Bush needed to win. Edited to add: Also, I heard only 26,000 of the provisional ballots came from Cleveland - most of the others came from the Republican precincts - another factor that Kerry probably considered in deciding to concede.

Mickey - I agree with you that the fact that Kerry lost to Bush doesn't mean the Democrats have serious issues. It was very close and Kerry was a liberal senator from "Taxachusetts." However, I do think the losses in the House and Senate (esp. Daschle) are more significant for the Democrats. Bush is the only President in a long time to increase his party in Congress. That didn't happen to Reagan OR Clinton. That to me does show that the Democrats are out of touch with "middle America." I am an independent but I typically vote Republican because I am fiscally conservative but socially liberal and as you pointed out - I care more about the fiscal issue than the social one. However, even though I am socially liberal - I respect people with different views and do not think the federal government should try to impose its will on people on social issues. I think gays should be allowed to marry but I do not want the federal government telling states that they have to allow it. It should be up to the states to decide. The same with abortion. I am pro-choice but I do not think the federal courts or federal government should impose this on people. So I do think that the Democrats could be socially liberal without trying to impose their views on others. But back to the fiscal issue - as much as I dislike Clinton because of his lack of morality - I did agree with many of his economic policies. The Democrats don't need to offer tax cuts and more tax cuts. But they DO need to control their spending. I know this may sound dumb since Bush has spent like a maniac and has upset many fiscal conservatives. But I really think if the Democrats were more fiscally conservative - they would attract a lot of moderate Republicans and Independents. And if they put up a conservative Democrat from the south or midwest - they could pick up some of the swing states, which would be enough to win the Presidency. That's what I would suggest for 2008. But I hope the Democrats don't put up Edwards (a good looking guy with no experience) or Hilary Clinton (could never get more than 45% of the vote) or I will be voting Republican yet again.

But he is the current quarterback until Losman is well enough to play. So I don't understand the need to bash Bledsoe after every game - ESPECIALLY a fairly dominating win. I was not thrilled with Bledsoe's play and I think he is a mediocre QB at home and horrendous on the road. But there is nothing we can do about it. We do NOT want to throw Losman in there before he is ready. And Matthews is horrible (reminder - no team in the league even wanted Matthews as a THIRD QB before the season began). I just think it lowers the stress level to enjoy a win (even one over a bad team) and hope for a few more before Losman takes over (once he has fully recovered - the worst possibility would be to hurry him back and have him reinjure himself).

I think Pats' fans are generally very annoying, obnoxious and arrogant but I actually respect the team and Belicheck tremendously.

I had heard before the season that Ball was the only Chargers' lineman worth anything. I say we should definitely sign him. Doesn't Teague have problems with shotgun? Having a center who can snap shotgun would be a plus (so that we would actually have a chance at 3rd and long).

There are a lot of tickets available in the trading post section of this board - I have 2 Pittsburgh tickets available. It may be hard to get the tickets just before the game though - it's probably better to have them mailed to you in France. Considering the way the season is going however - you may be able to get 2 for cheap just before the game. Hotwire.com has cheap hotels (although it doesn't tell you the location until after you purchase the room). I would say the average price of a hotel is about $70-$80 a night but you can get better deals on hotwire (especially near the Niagara falls area). I would think flying to the game is the easiest - taking a train from New York City would be a really long train ride. I fly in from D.C. - it's a really quick trip - only an hour. If there are non-stop flights from France to D.C. - you could always do that.

I voted for the Bears. Their offense looks worse than Miami (if that is even possible) but unlike Miami or us - their defense is not great either. I know it always seems like your own team is the worst when they are not playing well but from an objective p.o.v. I would have to say it is the Bears.

Hey does anyone know where I can listen to the Bills game online? For some reason, the game is not showing in D.C. (even though the Redskins are not on). And to make matters worse, I sprained my ankle yesterday playing flag football so I don't want to hobble over to a sports bar. Thanks!

Yes, I would be interested in seeing my predictions - I totally forgot about that.

I was expecting 2-3 jets which they've done at other games (and completely freaked me out the first time) so I wasn't too surprised by the low flying plane.

I agree BF - I live in D.C. and have season tickets so while I will make it to 3 games this year - I try to sell the rest for around face value. It is too expensive to go to every home game when you have to pay for air fare, hotel, etc. The good news is that I only have 2 games that I didn't sell yet (got face value for the others). The bad news is one of the games is against the Cardinals (currently going for about $40 for 2 on ebay). Pretty sad.

I am also pessimistic. Last season when we were 3-3 and had lost to the Jets - I thought our season was over. I based that on the fact that our coaches were inept and I couldn't see our team winning many more games even though we dominated our first 2. This year - although we are 0-3, I see a much more potential. I have no idea why I'm not as pessimistic as I was last year but I think any reasonable fan has to say after a mere 3 games (and 3 games in which we were competitive), it is a little too early to say the season is over. Especially when we have winnable games coming up. If we lost to the Jets and Dolphins then I will agree that the season is over.

I agree with Mickey. The question is NOT whether Bledsoe sucks (or is not very good) but whether Shane Matthews is any better. I saw this guy play for the Redskins (I live in D.C.) and he is horrible. This is a guy that no one even wanted as a 3rd string QB before we picked him up. I'm also opposed to throwing Losman in at the earliest moment. Losman is our future and I don't want to throw him in there and have him break his leg again. I know that breaking his leg again will always be a risk but I'm guessing rushing Losman back and playing him as soon as possible has to increase that risk. Our O-line looked better in the first half yesterday but I would prefer to improve it before putting Losman in (i.e. next year). Bledsoe is not our future but our best chance at doing anything this year is with him (rookie QBs always struggle). And for those who think we are going 3-13 or worse, that argument still means we shouldn't put in Losman because it's better to have Bledsoe get killed this year than our future QB. First round QBs that sit for at least a year have a much higher success rate than first round QBs that play their first year. Everyone knows that Losman is raw - let's not mess him up by throwing him in this year and hurting his confidence when there is no reason to.

Pretty funny - we were saying the same thing at the game. We were saying we should plug Moorman in at QB. The only problem is Drew can't punt.