Dan

If they can kick it any way they want, why wouldn't they place kick it? Or does the receiving team get to chose the type of kick?

Holy crap! Maybe Buffalo's City Hall was built on an old Indian burial ground. Seriously, I never would have guessed the Conspiracy would have gone back that far. How old is smaking man anyway?

The problem here is you and so many other posters are missing the central point to the arguement. What we have here is a clear example of the first Law of DeLucian Logic. The Law of Increased Losses clearly states that to lose is more beneficial to a teams success. See, if you lose you gain a better draft and your teams success is guaranteed. Of course, we all know that and its widely accepted as true. The principle here is a lesser known facet of the first Law. More losses also means you're a better team. In the scenario discussed here, more losses by the collective Conference teams translates to a better Conference. See most people would assume that Dallas is not a very good team because they lost. However, according to the Law of Increased Loses, Dallas is a far better team than the Colts (because the Colts won). It's kinda like Nonlinear Chaos Dynamics. Linear thought must be suspended. Remember, it's not how you win, its how you lose, that determines your success.

That didn't take long.

I completely agree. And I love it for Morman. I'm just sayin, how many Superbowl teams can say that their best athlete is their punter? I'm looking forward to the day when our punter becomes just another player and our best players and athletes are the QB, RB, LB, etc. For the last 2 years, I actually enjoy our punts because I get to see Morman play. I'm sorry, but that's not a good indication for a team.

So you're telling me the NFL Conspiracy against the Bills goes as far back as the 1940's???

As much as I like Morman, I really look forward to the day when we stop talking about our punter as being the best athlete or team MVP.

What year is this again?

I didn't think so either, but no way it gets over turned with those camera angles.

It would appear the Colts figured out how to stop the run as well. Shaping up to be a good game.

Firstly, you say Ralph is cheap because he won't spend big money (perhaps atrocious money) to keep Nate and/or sign other big name free agents. Then you say he should make good decisions with how he spends his money. The two comments seem in opposition to one another. Which is it? Spend like a drunken sailor or spend wisely? Secondly, the notion that Ralph doesn't care about Buffalo, etc. Well, quite frankly, that doesn't deserve a rebuttal.

I think you're missing the primary premise a 7 and 9 team is 7-9. 7-9=-2. A 10 and 6 team is 10-6. 10-6=4. -2 is smaller than 4 therefore you have to divide by 16. So you can easily see that the team below 500 is mathematically better than the above 500 team.

Agreed. Its like a study in alternative mathematics.

What point was that again?

I thought the NFC was better? I'm confused.

This thread is beyond comprehension. But I definitely like this line of reasoning. The NFC is great because most of the teams are under 500. Therefore, the Bills at 7-9 are perhaps only 1 or 2 more losses from a Superbowl! Initially, you might think that the Bears and Chargers are better than us because they beat us. Ha! but that's where you'd be wrong! We're way better because we finished under 500 while they played weak teams and got great records. This is DeLucian logic and its irrefutable. See we should have started Nall and lost a few more games and we could be even better.

Not that I'm a big Willis supporter, but I do think that too many of us have opinions that are just that opinions and not based in reality. I'll attempt to answer a few of the questions, with my opinions. Ultimately, I think the Bills braintrust will have the best answer to all these questions and make the right choice. Ultimately, I could care less if Willis stays or goes; I just want a better run offense. But more importantly, I think it more critical that we stop the run first. If dealing with Willis takes any time from that discussion, then I think the Bills Mgmt should wait a year, seeing as how he's still under contract. Why wasn't he able to break 1000 yards? Good question actaully. I'd blame a little on our offense as whole. We were a pretty bad offensive team for the most part and by the time we started to come together a little Willis was already playing injured. But, I do agree, it seems his yardage should have been hirer. Granted it should be mentioned he missed considerable playing time with his injuries. Why does he go down so easily yet when he plays the Jets he's a one man terror? I'd argue that most backs go down when they're hit. Willis very seldomly got to hit the line or the defender at full speed, so its harder to bowl over defenders when initial contact is made in the backfield. Perhaps the Jet run D is one thing our coaches have figured out; hence his better numbers with them. Of course, it could be motivation on Willis' part. If so, then I'd say... how do we motivate him for all teams is a worthwhile question for Bills Mgmt. Does he even like it in Buffalo? Irrelevant to his success as a running back, IMO. Does he always give his best effort? Certainly, this is relevant and something I've wondered as well. However, playing with broken ribs, ankle injuries, stomach ailments, and the like would seem to suggest that he's putting some effort into playing. The one thing that's hardest for us to know is how did all these injuries affect his play. Maybe the coaches should have pulled him due to him not being 100% (ala Kelly in the Redskin Superbowl after his concussion). Sometimes players want to play, but the coaches should say jsut say no. effort? Why was he looking for a contract extension before he had even reached 1000 yards for the season? Did he think his production was worthy of being rewarded with an extension? I'm lumping these together because they're all similar. I would argue this is a good thing and perhaps helps answer the question about him liking Buffalo. If he didn't like it here and wanted to leave for more money, wouldn't it make more sense to ride out his contract and run to a higher bidder asap. By asking for an extension, he's saying.. hey I like it here and would like to stay. Of course, he wants to get a pay raise, but who doesn't want a raise. But, the fact that he asked for an extension and not a release seems to imply that he likes it here and wants to stay. Why is this a bad thing that's got so many people upset? Is it the offensive line? Unquestionably the line is a factor in the running back's production. And we all know our line is less than stellar. Is that all of the problem? Perhaps not, but it's certainly a part of the problem. Does he care more about winning a Superbowl or does he care more about wanting outside media attention? I think Willis is the only one that could answer that. If asked, I'm sure he'd say the Superbowl regardless of whether its true or not. If I were a coach, I'd ask him; as well as explain that the best way to get the attention and movie contracts, etc. is to win a superbowl. Just my few thought's on the Willis debate.

Well, lately, pride in the way our team looks is about the only thing we have to hold on to. Plus, of all the things to do, changing the uniforms back to a design that's already been designed would be pretty simple. I doubt it'd take Marv (or whoever makes the call) all of about 2 minutes to point to the one he liked.

Amen. What would Packer fans say, if they changed their uniforms to some god ugly seahawk green with a blue stripe and umber numbers outlined in gray? I'm pretty sure they'd be fashionistas as well. Its about tradition and pride in your team.

Excellent!

I agree, very interesting indeed. (also, excellent work Dibs!). I've been cautiously optimistic about our line improvement. Just from watching the games, it seems they're playing much better. But, then we play a truly good team (Baltimore) and don't look so great. And it's interesting that these stats seem to bear that out. (Granted for that game I couldn't watch it all, so I can't speak as confidently of how our offense looked) I think the key is that the position we need to upgrade (OGs) are easier than in previous years (OTs). So, that's a good thing. I think it also becomes important to the discussions regarding Mcgahee and drafting receivers and all. It would seem we still need ot spend a fair amount of attention on our lines and LBs.

There are exceptions to all laws and regulations. When I worked for NYC, you had to have a physical residence within the City. It took a lot of effort, but that law was eventually waived and I was allowed to live in NJ. If they want him bad enough and a 10 year contract is the dealbreaker, he'll get the 10 year contract.

I kinda liked "nattering nabob of negativism".

Precisely.

That's what I thought. I assume they would have been fairly remote possibilities, as well. It was just a passing thought as I watched more VY highlights on Point After. That's the worst lasting effect about that game, just more b roll of a young, media star running all over Bills players.