Dan

Reed makes it to final 10!

OK, we all like the guy. He's young. Comes from a strong team. But, may I ask... does anyone know of any players he was responsible for bringing in? I've read 5 pages of posts and no one has really mentioned his scouting track record. I did a quick google, but found nothing. So, help me get behind this signing, please.

Now I know why they're outsiders. Because if they knew anything about the Bills, they'd know that everyone and everything associated with the Bills is wrong, bad, and/or otherwise shouldn't be in the league. While, converserly, everyone and everything on any other team is right, good, and/or otherwise the way it should be in the league.

Just had a little laptop discussion a few weeks ago. I ended up buying a Lenovo IdeaPad for $629. Although, when I just clicked on the link in Deano's post, the same laptop is pricing at $999! I guess the cost of ginger in China is driving the prices up.. Oh well. It's the first Lenovo I've ever purchased and was very pleased with it. I only had it in my possession for about 2 days before I got it set up and shipped out; but it was a nice machine. I completely agree. I don't like the larger 15+ inch laptops. Why? The idea is supposed to be to have a portable computer. I have a friend with a 19" laptop... holy crap! It's like lugging a full desktop pc around. But, at the same time I don't like the small 10" displays. For my taste, that's getting too small to see a decent page of text. So, I try to stick to the 13-14" range. But, I'd give the Lenovo's a good look. Like I said, I was very pleased with it's look and feel. Of course, it'll be another year before I know how they hold up. I would suggest looking around the interwebs for some online coupons. I found one when I bought that machine and it saved me $70. Not bad. I was hopeful the new iPad would break all the laptop rules... but alas they made a 10" iPod Touch. Oh well. I really like the MacBooks if you can swing that way but otherwise, I'm finding the Macs as just too high priced to justify. As much as I like them, it's just tough to spend that kinda cash.

I agree with pretty much exverything you said; save one concept. IMO these guys want to win - at all costs. They're in markets that allow them to charge more for tickets, luxury boxes, shirts, advertising, etc. They want all that money in their pocket so they can bring in every and any player they want. Essentially, they want to buy a championship. What they don't realize is that having a strong league is what makes their team as valuable as it is. Take half the teams out of the league and you don't cut today's pie among 16 teams. Today's pie gets drastically reduced because it leads to overall less interest, less watching, less revenue created. They just don't get it. Likewise the players have become overly greedy. Yes, the sport doesn't exist without them and they should be paid accordingly. But, there's a tipping point. If they get paid too much, it becomes hard for half the teams to compete. Therefore, you get the same scenario as above. A few good teams, many bad teams. Decreased interest, less watching, less revenue and their popularity declines. They just don't get it either. I'm not sure the answer. But, I'd think taking the existing player money pool and just redistributing it so that proven vets get more than incoming rookies seems fair.

I have no problem with the game. But, I absoluely hate that they moved it to this week. First you're missing a lot of starters. But, most importantly for me at least, the Pro Bowl has become a light hearted end to the season. I'd watch the weekend activities - all the stupid competitions they had. Then you see an fun game where players were just out having a little fun. It's fun. It's not supposed to be a real game with hard hits, blitzes, and the like. My advice, just sit back and enjoy it for what it is... a final chance to watch some of your favorite players have some fun. Of course that's harder to do when no Bills make it there. But it is what it is. Have a beer and relax.

Agreed. That was my first thought. I couldn't remember his name though. (I was gonna say the one with a black guy in it, but then again I don't see color ) But, that's a cool user and avatar, perhaps mostly because of the frequency and timing of his posts. And his comments always match the avatar perfectly. The first time I saw him post... I got scared. Nobody's is cool too. Great concept. He gete's me #2 spot. (of course, Numark's was tops.)

IMO, it depends upong who they go after/get as a FA. I agree, lets not go after some career scrub that's only upside is he's been in the league longer than our guys. But, if a true starting QB is available - ala Pennington was for Miami a few years ago - then I say lets do it. But, to go with one our our current QBs or a draft pick; means the QB position is again a huge question mark next season. Perhaps it works out, but there's no guarantee at all. And the probability is actually higher that our QB play will be substandard, because our line will still be young and learning regardless of who they bring in to play tackle (especially if its a draft pick). clearly it's not... at least i hope not.

I agree. If the franchise QB isn't available you have to take an alternative route. I think there's likely to be some proven FA QBs. That's why I say get a good FA QB, not to win the Super Bowl with necessarily, but to solidify the position and bring us to a basic level of competency while a young future franchise QB is being found and/or groomed. Then get the best LT possible in the draft. Now, if you could show me a good FA LT, then maybe we go the opposite route. But, I don't think you find both in FA or the Draft this year. And we need to dramatically improve both positions to even be considered relevant let alone winning.

Oh well.. .so much for that. I turned it on, posted this. About 2 minutes later I fell asleep and just woke up with 3 minutes left in the game.

Other than that Tebow fella, who else should I pay attention to?

Because his current team is still in the Super Bowl.

Precisely. However, it will/should ultimately be settled in the courts and the NFL would almost certainly (at least I would hope) lose. However, the real questino is do 2 guys selling shirts on the street have the money and will to battle the NFL in court? I'm sure the NFL is banking on... no. You would hope that any judge would hear about 2 minutes of testimony before stopping it and throwing it all out. Unfortunately, after seeing successful lawsuits for making hot coffee hot, I wouldn't old my breath.

In fairness to Kelly, he played in a time when QBs could actually get hit. So.. ya know. Bledsoe played for an additional 5 years after the trade to Buffalo; gave us the best year of football for a decade; and held the position pretty well while in Dallas for Romo to come along without being rushed. Had the Bills had any sense they wouldn't have rushed JP into the game and held onto Bledsoe and half their other players a little longer before self-inflicted rebuilds each year.

Moving the ProBowl is perhaps the most stupid thing Goodell has done. Yes, even dumber than screwing up the draft. Due to the nature of football, the Pro Bowl will always be a glorified pre season game. That's just the way it is. First of all, no one wants to go all out and run the risk of a career ending injury. It's just not going to happen. Secondly, the very nature of football, being the true team sport, mens you cannot just put a bunch of all stars together with little practice and expect the same crisp play that you see from the top teams. The game has become a fun, light-hearted event for all involved - the players and the fans. They get a free trip to Hawaii. We get to see them in a more relaxed environment having a little fun. It's a nice send off to the season. If you take it as that. However, now it's just another "event" amidst the hype and spectacle. Not to mention some of your best players won't be participating in any of the Pro Bowl events. Talk about losing relevance.. its completely lost now. Imagine being a Dolphins player in the Pro Bowl.. wooo you get a free trip to the place you work all year. Not to mention, imagine some guy on the Saints that made his first Pro Bowl; now he misses all of it. Just stupid. Maybe it'll make the NFL some more money though. Yeah money.

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.)