Dan

They don't look enough like Georgia Tech's. Try again.

I agree. Either way the new QB may fail. However, letting him groom behind the established starter, in theory, gives your coaching staff more time to determine if he has the right stuff without the stress and pressure of starting each week. Of course, though, you make a good point if there's a can't miss guy in the draft then yeah lets get him. I'm just not sure there's one of those guys this year. By all means, fixing the Oline is the priority. But, an established, experienced QB should be able to more readily adapt and play behind a learning line. The problem with the Beldsoe comparison was (1) who they got to groom and (2) how longthey gave hi mto develop. 1 year, with a broken leg, is not what I have in mind when I say lets get a young guy to develop. Without a doubt, there are plenty of areas of concern. This is just my thoughts on fixing the QB position. And by no means do I mean to suggest that bringing in a McNabb will fix the BIlls and get us to the playoffs. I did think it will go al ong way to making us relevant. What concerns me most, in all honesty, is that until we get a real HC in here, we may never get above 8-8.

You don't bring in McNabb to save the franchise and be the long term solution. You bring in McNabb because he's an unquestioned starter and leader of the offense for the next couple of years. All the while, allowing a young Brohm or draft pick develop properly. That guy would be the long term solution. This is the primary point that a number of posters here are failing to recognize. Bring in Kolb, Vick, Smith, or any other backup/unproven QB and you still have a huge question mark at QB. Yeah, Troy Smith might be good; be we really don't know. No one does. IMO, the quickest way to turn around the offense would be to bring a proven winner and known leader, like McNabb. Draft the best LT you can get. Immediately, the offense improves. In a couple of years, the young draft picks on the OL (Levitre, Wood, '10 LT draftpick) have matured. Likewise, the young QB (Brohm or '10 draft pick) has matured and he's ready to step in and continue improving. This model has been used succesfully by a number of teams over the years and is, by far, the safest way to remain relevant and have long term offensive success. Bring in a draftpick QB or complete unknown (Smith, Kolb) next year, and you may get lucky, but the odds are much more likely the QB will fail behind a still young and inexperienced line. This is what the Bills have been trying and it's just not working. So, I'd be all for McNabb provided, of course, that the cost is appropriate.

Are we seriously concerned that a LBs coach was not named our Defensive Coordinator?

Point taken and agreed. I would assume he was asked about it; therefore, kinda put on the spot. But, maybe not.

With all due respect, would you expect current players and people connected to the team to publicly state that they think the hire is a joke? Kelsay is saying the only thing he can say.

According to Rich Eisen on tonight's NFL Gameday Final: in the last 10 playoff OT games, 2 have been decided on the first possession. I haven't checked that for confirmation though. I guess that's the problem. You, and others, seem to want both teams' offense to have the ball in 100% of OT games. For myself, and others, it's only important that the majority of games are not decided by the coin toss. Hence, we'll always disagree... on this one topic at least.

Holy crap will it ever end. Just found an article summarizing overtime results from 1974-2003. Total no. of overtime games (1974–2003) 365 Both teams had at least one possession 261 (72 %) Team won toss and won game 189 (52 %) Team lost toss and won game 160 (44 %) Team won toss and drove for winning score 102 (28 %) Games ending in a tie 15 (5 %) Interestingly, though, the author concludes: "The data appear to support the notion that the football team scoring first in sudden-death overtime is usually the one that had won the coin toss and received the ball." However, I think the author is not a football fan and does not fully understand the argument. The number to look at is 28%, not 52%. That is, only 28% of the time has the coin toss winner won the game without playing defense. Just because the same team that won the coin toss also won the game - after both teams had a possession - doesn't translate to an advantage. IMO. In 72% of OT games, both teams' offense get the ball. Clearly, the argument that it is somehow unfair because one team doesn't get the ball, just isn't supported by the numbers. None the less, people will still argue it. I can only guess it's because they don't get to see their "stars" play.

My last post on this because it is literally the definition of beating your head against a brick wall. Five teams were not jobbed. They all had a chance to win the game. They failed to stop the opposing team and lost. No one went out, waved their hand, and gave them a win. They earned it. If I were in an outdoor stadium, in bad weather, high winds - I would give up the ball first, take the wind, and play defense. In a dome, no I'd take the ball first; and tell my offense to remember that they still have to play to win.

I said nothing about Brees deserving anything. The Saints stopped the Vikings in regulation. They won the coin toss - that the Vikings called BTW. Then Brees and the Saints earned a shot at a FG to win. (Well, given some of those calls, earned may be a little strong of a word.)

If it's so unbalanced why is it that only 5 of 13 OT games this season resulted in a win on the first drive (according to the graphis they put up at the start of OT)? Yes, you want the ball first, but that does not ensure a win.

Exactly. Farve blows the game in regulation, not even giving them a chance at a FG - when with a minute left they were all set to have a 40-45 FG try to win the game. But now, for some reason, he deserves a chance to win it in OT? I don't get it. Favre and the Vikings blew the game to send it to OT, how does that translate to them deserving a chance in OT?

Do you have Norton installed?

... and the shootout begins.

I wish we could go 0-16 every year. Think of all the HOF players we'd have by now!

Polian is certainly THE individual most responsible for putting that Super Bowl caliber team together. But, Marv is THE individual most responsible for getting those players to 4 consecutive Super Bowls. A feat no other coach, GM, or player has ever accomplished for a reason.

Have you checked your security settings? Sometimes Norton can cause conflicts? If you've uninstalled Norton, run the Norton Removal tool. What about firewall settings? Make sure they're all off and retry. Turn off all file and print sharing Unplug all network cables and eactivate your card: Go to Run> CMD. Type "route print". Make sure all you don't have a destination of 0.0.0.0 If so, type :"route delete 0.0.0.0". Reconnect/enable and try again. Try disabling IPv 6 completely. Two other links to try: Link 1 Link 2 May have to just break down and try a new netwrok card.

damn.

Wasn;t he in the Pro Bowl his first season? His second season.. now. Good point! And my only reason for adding his name to the question was because to some extent... he's a prime example of someone that based on some measures shouldn't even be in the NFL. But, when he does play.. all he does is win more often than not.

OK... serious question. I don't watch much college football. But, Sanchez was supposedly not ready for the NFL and lots of questions about him - yet all he's done is win. Vince Young, same thing. OK, so now we have this Tebow guy, that's not supposedly ready for the NFL, but all he's ever done is win. My question is... should we place more emphasis on someone who knows how to win and has proven he knows how to lead his team, and consider someone like Tebow? And not worry so much about tangible things line mechanics and such?? My question doesn't relate to Tebow, but more along the line what's more important.. tangible qualities like arm strength and mechanics or intangible qualities like being a leader and motivating teammates?

This post, I'll disagree completely with. In a football game, especially the AFC Championship game, I don't' want to see any players on my team display humility. There is no place for humility on the football field. After the game, in the press conference - absolutely. But, out there on the field? Never. You display absolute confidence and swagger. You bust a guy in the mouth and step on his throat. Period.

For the most part I agree with your posts. (Mine was a little tongue in cheek.) However, if that were the Bills out there playing with that level of excitement and enthusiam - and winninng - I would mind near as much. I think we'll see these guys settle down a little as the game goes on, but it is nice to see a team come out of the locker room pumped up. Nucci, I'm sure you watch plenty of football. Again, my post was a little tongue in cheek. So, no offense meant.

I'd like to just add that

It's called being excited to play. See... when you're not a fan of the team; or don't really care about football, you're just picking up a paycheck; or you're just taking what's given to you; or you're given turkey sandwiches and warm milk for a pre game meal you get guys just walking around out there with an occasional golf clap. Being a Bills fan, I'll assume you don't watch many other games; hence, you haven't seen many players that actually care about winning. But displays of excitement are typically seen as a good thing from a football player.

OK... let me see if I got this right. First, we're told the HC decision will be critical. So we wait... and get a completely mediocre, tired Gailey. No problem - as long as he hires good coordinators all will be good. So we wait... and get a Curtis Modkins as the first hire. A guy that is so unheard of that we don't even know enough about him to say anything bad, let alone make up something good. No problem. So now, it's the DC that's the really important hire. I guess the first two guys were really just decoration. So again, we wait. Let me ask though, when they fail in the DC hire, will the ST Coach then become the one that matters most? I'm sorry, but Nix or whomever is putting together one of the most uninspired coaching staffs I think I've ever heard of. Serious question - how many times has there been a highly effective HC that simultaneously had the responsibilities of the OC or DC?