Dan

I think it means our punter's production dropped of considerably. Cut him and get someone that can punt more.

Hamdan knows the last two digits of Pi.

Hamdan doesn't throw passes into the endzone. The endzone moves to wherever his pass goes. Hamdan was blitzed once. The blizter was smited and has never played again. Hamdan left NFL Europe. The league folded. Coincidence, I think not.

Exactly. And if Whitner was ranked #1 in the league, that would mean that there were no good safeties in the league. Gotta love it. I knew this thread wouldn't let me down for some humor.

Exactly. And if Whitner was ranked #1 in the league, that would mean that there were no good safeties in the league. Gotta love it. I knew this thread wouldn't let me down for some humor.

Precisely. I would say that the one trait Trent needs to acquire more than any other is confidence in receivers. Its not so much just throwing the ball down field all the time as it it recognizing which receiver (Evans or Owens) has the single coverage and throwing it up and allowing them to make a play on it. All the good QBs do that to some extent. Sure in some blitz situations you should cut your routes off and get the ball out quick, because the defense is literally sending more guys than any line can block. But, there are plenty of opportunities when he'll have 1 on 1 coverage and he needs to just toss the ball and let his receivers make a play. Sure, he'll throw a few interceptions doing that - all QBs do. But, with good receives - and I think we have that - more often they'll either catch the ball or it'll go incomplete. That's called dictating to the defense, if you check down with every blitz, you're playing right into the defenses hands. Trent's biggest problem last season seemed to be waiting for his receiver to be open before he threw it. In the NFL you can do that. He's got to anticipate the route and have confidence in his receivers to bail him out a few times. Throw the damn ball down the field. You've got the receivers that can go get it. Now just put it up there for them.

Fear not. The Chroisen One forgives all no matter how much they're missing right now. Upon taking the field, the record books shall part and the Chroise shall live forever.

There can be no competition with the Chroise. There can only be passes that he allows you to throw. I fully expect Hamdan to be #2 by September.

You come here, peddling this so called "information" without anything to back it up. No description of the car you drive. Not even the number of bathrooms in your house. And you expect people to just buy it and think you're somehow knowledgeable. Well, I'm sorry sir. I, for one, am not buying it. For all I know you could be the janitor on a bus.

agreed.

Maybe Montana and and Young were HOF QBs because they were throwing to Rice?

Hamdan Rocks!

Bingo. I suspected as much the first time I heard they're retiring to keep their pensions, but being hired as special consultants. It happens in government all the time.

And if Schonert can be less predictable in his play calling, in general. I'm not sure it matters at all who's on your line. If you motion Reed to the side of the line where the RB is going, and the entire defense sees this and slides over, we're going no where fast. I guarantee you, Trent could throw touchdowns at will if they'd line Reed up in the slot, motion him with him stopping beside the LT. The entire defense shifts, DBs move up. Play action to Lynch/Jackson to the left. Trent throws to a wide open Evans/Owens on the right side. Evans/Owens crawls into the endzone because the entire defense would be at the line. Man I hope to never see Reed go in motion again.

Yeah, if he was anywhere else, we'd all be ripping that team as well. Imagine what we'd be saying if the Fins signed him. And, yeah, it's to be expected that the media will publish all sorts of stories like this. But I'd say the biggest difference for TO in Buffalo as opposed to TO most anywhere else is that we (the fans) will welcome TO calling out the QB and OC. Let's face it, we don't have an established OC. We don't have a Pro Bowl QB. We don't have a team that's full of proven guys competing for the playoffs each year. Typically, you'd think the HC would be the guy that comes in and shakes players up, trys to motivate them, calls out their mistakes. Well, we don't have that either. So, it seems, most of us are wanting/expecting TO will play that role.

I'd agree, as usual, with much of your assessment. To further Mr Weo's question, I'd also suggest that a change was needed in Dallas. For all their moves, all their big name players, all their hype, all their greatness, they weren't making the playoffs. so changes had to be made. I've been watching the Cowboys training camp show on NFL Network (that's how bad I jones for football this time of year) and, of course this is strictly my opinion and not based in any way on facts or insider information, Romo's opinion seems highly regarded. They often show him on the sideline with Jones and Wade talking about this player or that. Add to that, he and Whitten are obviously much better friends and, well, I can only surmise that it wouldn't take too many comments by TO or dropped passes before Romo starts suggesting that a change is in order. Personally, I've never been sold on Romo. He often makes some of the worst decisions, ala Favre, but at the worst times. But, Jones seems to love the guy. So, if you're Jones, who do you move? Your productive TE that Romo loves. Your recently acquired WR (Williams) that came at a high price, or the guy that runs his mouth and Romo doesn't get along so well with. I'd guess its a fairly easy decision. Interestingly, I was watching the week 11 games on NFL Network yesterday, while doing a few other things and they had the Cowboys/Redskins game on. Most of TOs dropped passes were pretty poorly thrown passes by Romo. Granted Romo had just recently hurt his pinky (it was bandaged). Also they had a number of Jauronesque plays for TO - a WR double reverse and several WR screens (with no one out there to block or run off the DB). All of which went for little positive yards. With game plans like that and poor passes, I could see TO getting pissed and letting his QB and OC know it which would further fuel the fires of discontent. I think it'll be interesting to see how the Bills incorporate TO into the offense, as well as, how he and the team handles it when/if it's WR double reverses, bad screen passes, and fly patterns 50 yards down the field while Trent is dumping off to RBs.

Dungy.

I'd bet a year's salary that Belichuck hasn't been surprised by anything in our offense for years. I've always pictured him like the one team in Waterboy with an NFL for Dummies book on the sideline reading up to see what Jauron et al. would call next. No reason to start shaking things up now.

I would add that I think the Bills are a great fit for TO as well. In Buffalo, TO is THE star. There's no one here to compete with. By default, he's the center of attention and, if the Bills have a good season, regardless of TOs actual performance, it will be seen largely because TO is here. So, he's going to remain the center of attention regardless of what Evans or Lynch or Trent does. I'm really hoping that TO can pull Trent out of his shell. What happened last year was... well.. just sad. Trent started as hot as you'd want a QB to start. But, with a few hard hits followed by a few mistakes, his confidence just appeared to be shot. He needs to keep his head on straight. In the past, I could see Trent and his receivers just going back to the bench and sit in quiet. Well, you know TO isn't going to do that. He'll be in Trent's face after good and bad plays. And that's what Trent seemed to need last season. Ya know, it strikes me as I write this, that what myself and several other posters are saying about TO's influence.. should really be the coaches job. What does that say about our coaches?

That's how I heard it as well. I believe it was posted on TO's website as well, so they said there's all the reason to think its accurate. I haven't checked TO's website myself, though. I believe TO added that he liked/missed most of his teammates in Dallas and got along well with them. But, he's happy to be where he's at now. Saying all the right things - unless you're Romo or Garrett, I suppose.

...or bust. W/L record be damned.

With the troll, yes. I agree. I'm not even sure why I responded in the first place. I guess I was just bored. But, you're right. If you entered into the off season with the idea of upgrading your WR corps, TO is by far the most productive receiver any team could have acquired. Coles, Galloway, anyone, not even close. I would put Boldin up there, but last I heard he was still a Cardinal. So hard to say you should have signed a guy who's team doesn't seem to want let go. With that said, if I had a team that was close (ala the Colts); I might be concerned about TO because we all know with that production comes a fair amount of baggage. However, for a team like Buffalo, they have little to lose.

I agree with much of what you've said, but Buffalo is different than Dallas or Phili. Even if TO has a down year, by his standards, while Evans has a record setting year; the fans and local media are smart enough to know why Evans was so good. TO will still get plenty of credit and recognition. I can't see a scenario where cameras and fans will not want to talk to TO in Buffalo. As a result, I think he'll be able to deal with someone else having success more easily than he did last year in Dallas with Whitten getting all the catches. Hell, in Buffalo, we have a fan club for the current 3rd string soon to be 2nd string QB. Sure, it could still go south. But, we desperately need someone on the sideline to call players out and expect more. If not the coach, it'll have to be a player. And as others have said, what could REALLY go wrong - we don't REALLY make the playoffs? Although typing this, I had a horrible thought. We go 7-9 again with TO blowing up at everyone and anyone. Jauron uses that as the excuse that TO sabotaged the season and we'd have won more games down the stretch if not for a divided locker room. Ralph buys it and we get a 5th year of Jauron et al.

If you're certain that husband wasn't the murderer than you have some clue about who the perpetrator was. You had to rule out the husband based on some reasoning, correct? You've deduced based upon (for example) time of death, cause of death, location of death, etc. that the husband wasn't the perp. Hence, you can say that the perp was available at a certain time, able to inflict certain types of wounds, had access to the scene of the crime, etc. Consequently, you would indeed have a clue about the perpetrator and would not make the the initial statement. Back to the argument at hand, to say your positive about anything as complex and as lacking in thorough data as human evolutionary origins is not wise, especially when prefaced by a self-proclaimed statement that you have no clue about the subject. That's all I was implying.

The point I was attempting to make, that apparently was missed, is quite simple. If you state that you have no clue as to what happened, how can you say that you're positive about anything? "I don't know what the answer is, but based upon this evidence or that, I think we evolved from H. erectus."; is a much more reasonable argument. As for my opinion, it's largely irrelevant. I'm not an anthropologist, nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night. So, typically I defer to the experts in the field as opposed to making an unsupported claim and assuring everyone that I'm absolutely positive that's the right answer. However, you asked for my opinion, so I'll provide it. There are currently 2 primary theories on human evolution - Modern H. sapiens evolved from small, regional populations throughout Africa, Europe and Asia and all modern humans evolved in parallel from these earlier populations. The second theory proposes that modern H. sapiens evolved from a small, isolated population in Africa. And as this population expanded it outcompeted all early hominid species. As far as I know, the fossil record and mitochondrial DNA studies best support the later theory. Hence, I would be inclined to cite that theory as most plausible, until evidence is discovered or presented to the contrary. As for the suggestion that modern H. sapiens evolved from H. erectus, well that's largely speculation at best. If you prefer the multiregional theory of parallel evolution; then I think you could make an argument that H. erectus could have evolved further. However, if the "out of Africa" theory is more accurate, then it's less likely that H. erectus further evolved into H. sapiens. Given my preference for the later theory, I'm currently of the opinion that H. erectus was an evolutionary deadend. But, again, I would argue that much still remains to be learned about human evolution and therefore much remains to be rewritten.