Dan

Long live the Chroise!

Well if scouts don't actually have to watch you work out... I just ran a few drills and clocked in a 4.1 - 40 time. Now all I need is an agent and another bag of Doritos.

I heard Hamdan is building some tall building in downtown Buffalo to revitalize the local economy in his spare time because he got bored throwing touchdown passes in all the offseason practices.

Rocks!!!!!!

I guess, for me, this thread just comes down to some people like to B word. For those people that are so certain that Ralph is a terrible owner consumed with greed, that the Bills are horribly run and don't even try to field a winning product, that all the players are sub par scrubs that wouldn't make any other roster, that the Bills are on their way out town; why do you even bother watching the team? Why do you post on a Bills fan forum? Why do wake up in the morning? Why don't you just find a better team with a great owner and winning attitude and follow them every day? Seriously, I just don't understand the mentality it would take to spend so much time and energy talking about and watching something that you so obviously don't like. Is there any other rational explanation other than some people just like to B word? I find it interesting about this whole notion that Ralph is prepping the Bills to move to Toronto. Ya know maybe the team will move; maybe they won't. I really don't know. But, it was just a few weeks ago someone posted a few links to the archived Sports Illustrated articles and an article about the Bills in the early 70's. I forget the most of it (because my brain doesn't function properly) but I seem to recall reading about some miserable seasons just before OJ got to the team and speculation that the Bills would be moving to LA. I couldn't help but think.. wow. This whole moving thing has been going on for darn near 40 years? Imagine that if you will; a fan completely convinced in 1970 that the team was about to be moved. I wonder if Bishop's dad still thinks that or if he's gotten past it. I'm not sure what's more sad... that an owner could forgo all that money and keep a team in a city for nearly half a century while maintaining one of the least expensive fan experiences and still be considered a cheap, money-grubbing SOB? Or that someone would claim to be a fan of a team and do nothing but talk negative about every aspect of the team (and somehow twist that around to convince himself that he's the true fan because he doesn't like the team)?

Excellent!! I heard it from a reliable source, deep within the Bills organization, and they confirmed that Hamdan still Rocks!

Hamdan Rocks!

I grew up outside of Memphis and went there as an undergrad. So, I'll disregard the douchebag remark. It's perhaps the only city I can really identify with, even more so than Buffalo. Visiting my family in Buffalo since birth has given me strong ties to Buffalo as well, but I've spent far more time in Memphis. Just figures, the only teams I cheer for.. the Bills, Sabres, and Tigers have now all choked in the championship. I wish I could be upset about that point, but it was the lousy freethrow shooting that did them in.

Just friggin sucks.

I tried that.. but I think the sports gods know I'm not serious. So it doesn't work.

I was thinkin of this thread right about the 1 minute mark and Memphis was missing all the free throws.

I went to Memphis... and this is shaping up like every friggin team I cheer for. Close, but not close enough. Maybe I should give up watching sports.

Excellent summation of how I see it. And that is probably why they drafted Whitner when they did. The drop off after him was great. If they miss Whitner, then who do they get at safety? I would allow for exceptions though. Perhaps there's a guy you feel is just a sure fire hit at a position of need or a position you'll need in a year. You have to take him. Also, you may have someone you think is a great player; however, you have zero need at that position. A good example would be RB this year. We have 3 solid RBs on the roster, it would seem to me to be the waste of a pick to draft McFadden, not matter how good he may be if he's still on the board at 11. So you pass.

We won SB XXV, so I can't agree with that one. If I listened to all the "media spin" about the game, then this would easily be number 1. After that, the forward lateral was completely hurtful. I'd give honorable mentions to the Ronnie Harmon game and SB 4 (measured in Buffalo years).

The FO created those holes because the players we had were not getting it done. Plain and simple. With all the superstars at RB, LB, CB; how many playoff games did we see? You're continually demonstrating a dislike for the FO for cutting veteran players and creating holes. But, you're forgetting the primary problem with all those veteran players.... they weren't playing together and (more importantly) winning together as a team. So, yes, they had to cut guys and replace them. We can play the game where we go through each player cut and each trade that didn't happen and discuss how it may or may not have turned out differently. However, that's all just an exercise in futility. The bottom line is.. .the Bills organization had just gone through 5 years with TD and we had an assortment of bad, decent, good players. But the organization had no direction, no unity, and no idea of how to win consistently. So how do you change that? You do exactly what the Bills did... you bring in a new FO, draw up a plan, and bring in players and personnel that believe in that plan. Clements didn't want any part of that plan, he wanted money - so they let him walk. McGahee didn't want any part of that plan, he wanted anything else - so they let him walk. And so forth. So, I wouldn't say they created holes. I would suggest that they just acknowledged that we had holes (because the players here weren't cutting it) and began filling them. We're about to enter the 3rd season of the new plan. I would expect to see a legitimate playoff push. We appear to be in that position. But we'll see. I still say it will all come down to the play of Trent. If we don't make the playoffs will it be because a second year QB folded under pressure (something that you could almost expect) or is it because the team folded? That will be the question. Of course, if we make the playoffs, it will be a validation that all of this discussion is unfounded.

You do realize that last year was the first time in 3 years the Packers made the playoffs. It was the 3rd season for HC Mike McCarthy. Their GM took over in 2005. So, by all accounts, they restructured with a new FO, HC and it took 3 years to get back into the playoffs... AND they had one of the greatest QBs to ever play the game during that span. So, yes, the Pack have done quite well to get to where they are. But, the Bills have done fairly well the last 2 years as well and appear to be on track for a playoff push this year. Only time will tell. But, at this point in time, I'd say we're on a better track than we were 2-3 years into the TD era. And if we make the playoffs in year 3 of this FO and Jauron's tenure, then I'd say they were right on track. If not, then I'll assess what's wrong and we'll see from there.

That's how I see it. The FO has spent the last 2 years pretty much completely rebuilding this team. Every position was one of need. What I'm hopeful for is that this will be the final year of that. If a solid WR, DT, TE emerges this year; then the team is finally at a point where every position is, at least, adequate. Then next year, we can start thinking about BPA and such. So, I'd say we're 1 more good draft away from that point. It's called patience. Going into year 3 of this FO and coaching staff, I'd say they're right about where they want to be.

I thought NC was supposed to good?

Thanks. If Memphis wins, it would be the first time ever that a team I cheer for wins a championship. (In any sport) So, if I'd suggest betting on NC.

My alma mater. So no hatin here. Unbelievable. Just curious... (I don't watch alot of basketball) but does that strategy of fouling like crazy in the last 2 minutes of a game ever work when your down by 10 (more or less)? Has anyone ever employed that strategy and actually won? I know I've seen teams get it close, but never actually win.

I've owned Macs of various shapes and sizes since the early 90's and I've never had a virus of any kind. (Granted, my Macs are home computers and not exposed in an office network type situation.) So, I think you're definitely much safer on a Mac. However, I would never recommend that anyone not use antivrus software. I think that's a personal preference and users should take responsibility for their own systems. A few quick links... just in case you haven't found them in google: First Ever Virus for Mac OSX - 2006 Mac Virus Resources It's my opinion that 90% (I just made that number up) of viruses today are adware/malware type things that take advantage of security holes in Microsoft products. So, if you own a Mac (no MS Windows) and don't use Internet Explorer and don't use MS Word; your virus threat goes to nearly non-existent. (especially if its a home machine and not wired into an office network) If you're on a PC with Windows XP/Vista and don't use Internet Explorer; your virus threat goes to very minimal. If you're on a PC, use IE, use MS Word; then you're a virus magnet. Incidentally, I have Dells as well and use Norton Symantec latest version, auto updates, always runs. OK. So you'd think you're protected. But, why do all these malware type things still get on your system? Is Norton/Symantec good for anything at all? Why bother having it and updating it weekly, if you still get viruses? And on a side note, do bad kinda "wipe your whole hard drive" type viruses still exist? Seems like all I see are these malware type things that just slow your system down but don't really do any physical harm. Perhaps this is for another forum, but just rambling.

If I may point out a fairly glaring flaw in many posters continual posts on this subject. It's been stated by numerous people that the earth has cooled and warmed multiple times on its own and without human intervention; therefore, why would we assume humans are effecting the global climate now? It has been suggested that the climate change we may, or may not, be observing is just a natural fluctuation in the earth's climate. However, these assertions are neglecting one of the primary observations of global climate change... the rate of the change. Yes, the earth's climate has warmed and cooled in the past. However, these previous cycles are measured in 10's of thousands of years. The changes currently being measured are being measured in 100's of years. Hence, the rate of change is considerably increased over what could be considered a "natural" cycle. It's this unnatural rate of climate change that leads many to conclude human involvement and causes problems for species throughout the world. Most animal and plant species are not equipped to evolve as quickly as the observed climate change. Hence, mass extinction and a world much different from the current one is expected. Furthermore, it has been suggested that we're just being narcissistic to think that humans can do anything as grand as affect the earth's climate. To that I would say, don't underestimate the power of 6.someodd billion people. If we have enough nuclear weaponry to obliterate the planet; surely we can do just enough to heat things up a little bit. Not necessarily saying we are, just saying certainly it's possible for humans to have some effect on the earth. Ever see how much damage 1 grasshopper can do to a field? Not much, I agree. Put 6 billion in that same field and watch it disappear. There's power in numbers. Sorry, but I stopped reading there (well not really, but I should have, if not for my curiosity an/or boredom with the television right now). I'm fairly certain he stated nearly the opposite relatively early in his diatribe.. that you don't have to assume that humans are effecting the global climate and that even if we spend lots of money and that spent money only results in minimal effect then what are we out, but alot of money and a slightly better world than one in which we did nothing. He put a smiley face in that box, but he said we'd have a very different world or something to that effect. I'm guessing he just likes to spend money; hence, the smiley face.

The Replacements, of course.

Yes.... Hamdan does indeed still Rock!