Dan

Saw it. And thought.. now that's how you win a game in the 4th quarter. Why Dallas hasn't done that all year long amazes me. Why Buffalo, with a back like Lynch, doesn't do that amazes me even more.

Given the amount of emotion this team showed over the last few weeks, I was beginning to think the impending Zombie Apocalypse had already begun in Buffalo (despite the ample evidence to support that it'll start in Pittsburgh). How can you possibly be worried about the Bills showing too much emotion?

Well, I'd like to see them start the game with about 7-8 consecutive runs. So, for me personally, I can live with 3 - 3 and outs to start the game. I've said it before, it's not about winning the 1st quarter; its about winning the game. They need to establish a run game in a bad way and wear the defense down.

1. A completely rabid and insane Buffalo crowd rocking the joint in the snow! How could last year's Monday night game get better? Just add snow! 2. A little heart and intensity from the players on the field. Like it or not, this is a must win game for the Bills; they need to play like it.

From your keyboard to Jauron's clipboard....

Question about this undefeated season... The old fins would always toast when the last team lost, because it preserved their perfect season. Last year the Pats* went 16-0, perfect regular season, but lost the Super Bowl in such wonderful fashion. So are those idiot fin fags still watching the Titans, hoping to toast? Or is do we never have to hear about that stupid crap again? In short, is the Pats* 16-0 good enough to shut the Fins up or do we need still someone to go 19-0?

Bills 19 Brownies 14

This is what I don't get... You've already started a thread saying you think the Bills blew it by not drafting DRC - and posters are discussing that. So then you start a new thread to essentially discuss the same thing - and wonder why posters don't want to discuss the same thing again.

MONDAY: Scattered snow showers in the morning...then snow showers likely in the afternoon. Additional accumulation 1 to 3 inches. highs in the mid 30s. West winds 10 to 15 mph...becoming northwest. chance of snow 70 percent. MONDAY NIGHT: Snow. Additional accumulation 1 to 3 inches. Lows in the mid 20s. Northwest winds around 10 mph...becoming north. Chance of snow 80 percent.

Agreed. But that's what concerns me... his tackling. I just hope he doesn't go soft on a tackle, just to have the guy blow through him for a 50 yard TD run. But you're right he should be able to run with anyone and not really risk further injury. But, I could see him less aggressive on the tackles.

As much as we need Reed back on the field, the last thing I'd want them to do is rush him back with a strained achilles. He's one mis-step from ending his career. So, IMO, its far more important to be cautious with his return. With regards to Whitner, I hope he's actually ready to play and doesn't pull another McGee on us.

I'd agree. Everyone from Jauron to Whitner to the fans said going in, that the goal was playoffs this year. So I'd say anything short of a wildcard spot is a bad season - regardless of the schedule. However, I also firmly believe that there's still nearly half the season to be played. So all the talk of whether this season is an improvement or bust or whatever, at this point, is premature. Why can't we just watch the games trying to enjoy the good; living with the bad? There'll be plenty of time to piss and moan after the season.

Now that may be a discussion worth having.

Excellent analogy! and just simple enough for a non math-lovin, econophobe like me to grasp. Like you said, it's certainly more complicated, but that's about the best "summation" of the problem I've seen. Hell of a fine mess we've gotten ourselves into here. It'll be something to see if and how they dig out.

Hip injury from the Pats* game. Not sure when or how he got it considering he caught the TD at the end of th game. My guess... it's nothing serious and he's out just getting a little rest on it but will be playing come Monday.

I figured it was much more complicated than my simplistic thinking. Thank you for the explanation. I'm still not sure I know what the hell you're talking about. But I trust many that are smarter than I do. For me at least, that's one of the things most unsettling about this whole mess - my complete lack of understanding. I'll endeavor to educate myself for whatever good that'll do. Thanks to all for their discussion here. I really am trying to understand just how screwed we are as I'm becoming more involved in running the business I work for. For those that have suggested that my idea of giving people money to pay off their loans was not good for a few reasons... .well, yeah I don't really think that would work, but I was trying to simplify the situation for my mind while coming at it from the other side. Because it does still concern me that we're rewarding a few large corporations that are no more responsible with their finances than the people that some have suggested why bail them out. It was suggested that people would have no incentive to pay off their mortgages and we'd back in this mess in a few years. OK. Can you explain why any of these banks and corporations will somehow decide to run their businesses properly if they know they can be bailed out? It kinda goes both ways, right. Yeah... my math could easily be off a factor of 10. I'll never claim to be a mathematician. I did use a calculator, but that's a lot of zeros.

There's an estimated 115million households in the US. Now help me on my math, but if you give $100K to each household, is that $1.15 trillion or a little more than half what we're giving out to banks and companies? Granted $100K isn't going to get everyone completely out of debt, but it would do quite a bit. I'm not actually suggesting we do this. But in my simplistic view of things, it just seems we're giving money to banks and businesses that have been screwing customers for years. And yet we're not doing anything to help the people that need it most. Again, I'm not by any means an economist and am quite proud that I know little about banking. But, I don't like the fed giving $100's of billions of dollars to people that have a history of mismanaging their money, and then changing the rules that were agreed upon by Congress when they agreed to give them the money. It just smells bad. So, I'm hoping I'm missing something. But, I take the silence in this thread to mean that maybe I'm not.

How can Ralph be so cheap when we have so many over paid players like Dockery, Walker, Kelsay, Schobel, Evans?

You do remember that Lynch missed 3 games, I believe, with and injury. So, he made the 1,000 yards in a few less than 16 games.

That's what I was thinking.

OK PPP bretherin, I just heard the Paulson press conference and have no idea if what he saying is good or not. Help me to understand - I'm no money economy guru guy that can't even spell liquidity let alone pronounce it. They're changing the rules of the bailout? Putting money into banks, investors and credit card companies? Seems like they're saying the way to help out the country is to keep us all in debt? I still don't understand how if they gave me money to pay off my debts and I then gave that money to the banks - paying off my mortgage, credit cards, car why that wouldn't be good for all. I would be out of debt. The banks get the money they need. We're all better. What they're doing seems to only help the banks but does nothing for me (the consumer). Like I say help me understand what's going on.

I think one of the forgotten issues this year are the constant shaking up of the Oline. From Peters holding out, to injuries, to substitutions; the Bills are doing what no successful team has ever done - switch out offensive linemen each week. Has that led to poor pass protection and run blocking? I don't know, but it almost has to be part of the offense's problem.

Maybe I'm the only one... but I love the 68 Seconds with Langston Walker vids. I would go so far as to say that I actually look forward to them each week. I wonder though, to do an "out take" version, does that mean he's concentrating more on the the game this week? The team said no funny business this week? He's too depressed? Curious.

Seems to me the league makes far more off of TV deals and advertising than ticket sales. So why don't they put a cap on ticket prices league-wide to ensure people attend the games and they all sell out, which would make the games look/sound better on TV which means more advertising. Of course, they could still charge through the nose for concessions.

I knew there was something I was missing. Hey maybe we could dehydrate the water and make it easier to ship? They'd be unpatriotic and terrorist lovin' muslims? Or smart? I'm not sure which though.