Dan

What he said.

This is the problem, IMO. Everyone knows Wilfork is great at stopping the run, 2nd only to his ability to put elbows into guys knees and heads. So, what do we do... continually run right at him. Same thing last week with the Jets NT. Then to top it off, they completely abandon the run and try to put the game on the shoulders of a 2nd year QB. Then they completely abandon any attempts at passes down the field, so the entire defense is within 20 yards of the LOS. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. It doesn't help that every week they've got a different starting line, of course. It seems so simple, yet they're so unwilling to fix it.

Seems like the Jets did that to our defense just last week. I guess it happens quite frequently.

Hamdan Rocks!

And rather than show some fire and kick his ass, the Bills all walked over and apologized to Wilfork for making him hurt his elbow.

I'd say that about sums it up. These guys have no fire. No spirit. And no will to play hard. Gutless is how they looked to me. If they had have the desire to win as us fans watching the game, it wouldn't be so bad. But, once again, we have a huge game, in the division, could be in 1st place or 4th place at the end of the day, against a team you haven't beaten in 5 years - and what do they do? They lay a huge egg as the seemed more interested in getting some lobster chowder after the game than they did playing. In essence, cream puffy are how they played.

Yet its OK to throw Hardy, Ellis, and Poz under the bus? Double standard much. Look, we all want Trent to do well, but facts are facts. And the fact is, for the 3rd week in a row, he's played very below average.

No. It was a very apathetic game from the Bills. They just looked like they could care less to win the game. This was one of the few game I got up mid-3rd quarter and started picking up. No sense watching such a gutless effort.

I knew Trent was going to have his good games and his bad games this year, but I hate to say it... he's on the cusp of having more bad than good though. 3rd week in a row he's looked unsettled, holding the ball too long, and missing receivers - not to mention the interceptions. At least he didn't fumble the ball. You can't have a run game when you don't even try to run the ball. The Bills looked defeated from the first drive on. Does this team ever play with intensity? I think this pissed me off the most. The Pats* and their fans seemed to be in cruise control and we were completely unable to do anything about it. It's almost as though they walk into that stadium ready to get back o nthe plane and leave. Just horrendous to see such a nonchalant, heartless performance.

Just reviewed the kick.... it did indeed hit a Bills player first. Looked like #37. But it hit his the back of his hand as he we going down to block Bruschi. Story of the game I guess.

Fuggin Awesome! Questionale call and no damn official review!

We all know the Bills gave up today. My only question... when? Was it on the first drive of the game? Or was it on the plane trip over?

Second week in a row the Bills D has let the entire 4th quarter go on a single drive that they HAD to get a quick stop. Great.

I can't in any way see this as a "fear" of something that may happen. It's almost a foregone conclusion that the Refs will at one or more points during the game make a call, or non call, that will be favorable to the Pats*. It happens almost every Sunday.

Could part of the running game and offensive problem as a whole be that we haven't had any consistency on the Offensive line? Have we played more than 2 consecutive games with the same 5 starters on the Oline? When is that ever a good thing?

Well crapity crap crap.

That's where we'll have to agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with that, right. I do agree that now it's needed; however, initially I'm less convinced. Certainly, many of the reasons cited for going to war - WMDs, Saddam's strong army, terrorists in Iraq (at the time the war began) - didn't pan out to be true.

And therein lies the rub and I would say was just one of the fundamental differences between McCain and Obama. How important is a free and stable Iraq? How is the best way to ensure a free and stable Iraq? A few tough questions that I won't begin to suggest that I have the answer to. However, much as I did when Bush pushed for war with Iraq, I'll have to trust the new President to make the right decision. As it turns out, IMO, Bush was wrong to push us into war and it's led us as a nation down a long and bad road. Hopefully, Obama uses better judgment and makes a better decision. I suspect we won't know for many years.

I don't dispute that. And, yes, it should be up to the generals. However, you have to keep in mind that that generals have a narrow view of the world. As they should. They're primary is and should be the war. The President has to take into consideration how that war fits into the overall world view, world economy, etc. So, he can't just go completely , 100% on the recommendations of the genearals. So, my point is that for any candidate to say "this" is what I'll do and then never waiver from that statement is reckless.

You say as long as it takes. I say indefinitely. Same difference. I prefer language more along the line of what Obama was saying towards the end of the campaign. We'll leave as soon as we can in responsible manner; with consultation from the generals in command. The fact that he changed his tone along the way gives me hope that he will listen to the generals on the ground and take their advice into consideration. But, we all have to remember, as President he has to take into consideration much more than just their opinion.

No problem. My comments were directed at you, more just taking your initial statement and expanding on it.

Just as reckless as it is to state that we'll be there indefinitely. Both - all - candidates make promises and statements during a campaign that become invalid the moment they start getting intelligence briefings that they never saw before.

Your post should end there. Regardless of your viewpoint; a teacher - any adult - shouldn't tell a child your dad could be gone forever. Do you really want that? Its one thing to generate discussion and try to get kids involved. Its something else to try and influence them with cherry picked arguments they can't fully understand.

I think that's why it was so blown up in the first place. She billed herself as a candidate for Joe6Pack, small town, I'm just like you, I have your problems, I'm losing money, we're in this together - and then it comes out her wardrobe cost more than most Joe6Packs make in 2 or 3 years. That's the rub there.

IMO - she couldn't have done the actual shopping. I could see her telling some staffer to go to store X and buy me something and maybe she did that to excess. But, even then, don't they have campaign directors and handlers and such that do most of that stuff? I find it odd that a person maintaining the schedule that one of the candidates had could be that involved in something as relatively mundane as clothes shopping. So, I'd think it was more of a larger campaign management issue. If you believe some of the reports that people have said she often ignored her handlers (what a bad word) and threw tantrums, then who knows what happened. But, again IMO, this is all a sidetrack as to why McCain lost the election. If this is what the RNC is worried about, they're in worse shape than anyone might imagine.