Dan

I like it... so he's fired then? No, no, they just fixed the clich. He's no longer getting paid. So, it'll just work itself out in time, less confrontation that way.

This is what I don't get. Seriously. If Cowher is definitely not coming to Buffalo, and he knows this, and he or his agent have told people such as Schefter; why not just say it publicly? They do a small piece about all the "potential" candidates that Buffalo has talked to. We know, for a fact, that the Bills have talked to Cowher thanks to JW. Why not just say, "The Bills have contacted our very own Bill Cowher, but he's decided to look in other directions for the 2010 season. So, no, our friend will not be in Buffalo next season." I mean, that's easy, respectful and still doesn't close the doors on him taking a job in Carolina or TN or Oakland or where ever. So, either Cowher doesn't want to officially eliminate the Bills offer, just in case all other potential offers dry up; or he's just a plain puss. I'm not sure which.

Am I the only one that read: Dear Buffalo Bills and Bills Fans Worldwide: whaa.. whaaa.. whaaaa. oh poor poor pitiful me. whhaaaaa. I have a suggestion, for the mods, can we just ban all posters that say they're done with the Bills and supporting this franchise, especially the ones that wish death on an individual or wish for the team to move? I mean if they're really done, they're no longer Bills fans so then they just become trolls.

Some very good points. I actually kinda like the first one to 6 points idea (I rounded up to a TD or 2 FGs). That would eliminate the long FG on the first drive winning the game and encourage going for the TD. BUt, it then puts the pressure on the other team to get a TD as well. It also solves the scenario of yesterday's game as well. Because you also bring up a good point about that. If you guarantee each team a possession, what do you do when GB gets the ball first, but AZ gets a turnover for a score. Is that game over? Or does the defensive TD not count so you can ensure both team's offense gets on the field? To take it further, what if there's a turnover on the kickoff? Does that count as a team's possession even though thir offense never took the field? IMO, this guaranteeing both teams an offensive possesion just leads to too many problems that have to be resolved with officials and rules. There's too much of that already. Let the teams play, the first one to score, wins. That's easy; its dramatic; its final. Although, the first one to 6 in OT is not a bad idea. Keep all the rules the same, just forces a team to get a TD or 2 FGs - no matter how they do it.

See, I don't thing the current OT system is stupid nor do I think you make it better by giving both teams the ball. So, much of the rest of your argument is flawed. The game isn't decided on a coin toss. It's decided by the players on the field. If your defense stops them, you can get the ball and win. Today's game proved that. Everyone thought whoever won the coin toss would score and win. Well, guess what.. it didn't happen that way. And that's why it's not broke. Yes. In an atempt to prove a point that you can never make everything fair and even. As was pointed out, even if you give both teams the chance to score; whomever gets the ball second is at an advantage because they know waht they need - FG or TD.

If the point is to make everything fair, why don't we look at the TOP at the end of the game and if one team's had it for 5-10 minutes more than the other, then extend the game so the other team can have the same amount of time to score? I mean it's not fair that the Pats* always get the ball for 10 more minutes per game than the Bills.

I was perfectly happy with it when the Bills beat the Oilers in '93. Given the scenario, the same as today's game, myfirst grief would be... how could we let them score 45pts! Not how we lost in OT on a FG. Which shows why Costas' opinion is irrelevant. When did he become some football rules expert any way? A FG is only considered a defensive victory when the other team gets the ball deep in your territory and you hold them to a 3 and out. If you let the other team drive 60+ yards and kick a FG, that's not a defensive victory in any circumstance.

Or leave it as is and allow for increased intensity, drama and excitement. I really dislike the "unfair" notion. The Cards should have won it in regulation, but missed an easy FG. So now they deserve a shot in OT? Why? The only change I think they should consider is whoever gets the ball at the start of the game gets it first in OT. It would add more controversy/strategy to the decision to defer the opening kick off.

Championship.

I'd rather see him be a little over the top with religion and thanking God, than see him all thugged out, pimpin up to his pose.

Only because it hurts our draft pick. Yeeeeaahhhhh Draaaaft!

Well, at least the Packers aren't laying down like the Pats* did.

Seriously, does anyone even pay attention to the fact that Marty, himself, has said he has no plans to coach again. It's not some inside scoop from a bartender or an internet blogger. Marty, when asked, has said he has no plans on returning to coaching. So, why, why ,why do we have to continue hearing his name brought up as though there's some chance he'll magically change his mind? It's the same with the Billick talk. For all his comments, the Bills still have not comtacted him. Doesn't that say it all right there? For whatever reason Nix doesn't like Billick. Who knows why but it apears to be the case. It's pointless to keep bringing up Billick's name when he hasn't even been contacted by the Bills several months after the HC job became available.

Somebody needs to ask TG about this. Maybe he's heard something?

ok, to be fair, the Refs let the Ravens get away with that non call. missed FG! Sweet.

..and now a horrible! spot.

No joke. Where's the replay of that?

And I'm not sure he'd be a completely bad candidate either. But, I'm also not sure he'd be he best candidate. However, I'll follow that up with... I'm really not sure who would be the best candidate. I guess that's why I tend to take the stance of.. in Buddy I trust. I would defintely like an established, proven winner first. I know you dislike Cowher, but IMO, he'd go a long way to establishing instant credibilty to a franchise that's been floundering for a decade. After Cowher, I'm not that excited about any of the former HCs though. And despite the Ralph is cheap mantra, it's hard to ignore all the recent success of first time HCs. So maybe a Frazier, Gimm, Zimmer isn't such a bad idea. For the record, I really dislike the JH guy coming in from Stanford.

Ralph's so busy meddling he doesn't have time to learn anyone's name. He just tells them what to do and finds ways to not pay them anything while they're doing it.

IMO, what makes them bad fans is the constant booing everytime the Pats* don't do something perfect.

unfrigginbelievable!

I'm pretty sure Schefter is making the final call.

Holy crap... Jauron took over Simon's account! Seriously, don't get me wrong, I'm not really putting any blame on the Bengals defense for the loss. I'm jsut saying they looked very average for 2 consecutive weeks going against a division team for us. It just doesn't instill any confidence in me for Zimmer in our division. Everytime Sanchez did a play action, roll out there was zero backside contain. Sooner or later I'd want a good coordinator to tell his guys to make that adjustment. They did very little to pressure ot confuse a rookie QB in his first ever playoff game. Granted, now, I wouldn't be upset if the Bills interviewed him. However, in the world of up and coming coordinators, I'd hope there's someone a little more inspiring. If not, we're really screwed.

Holy crap what a good start to this game. I just hope the Ravens can keep it up.

yeah! Suggs strips Brady!