Dan

Exactly, either way you have to stop them before a first down. IMO, bad decision.

In my opinion, it depends upon what happens on the field. He could adress the lines (ala Mike Williams) and do it with the wrong players. By the same token, he may not address any of these positions because he and the coaches may realize something about our current players that we don't yet see. Either way, what's most important is wins and losses and how the team looks on the field. Marv, for me at least, gets a few years to put a winning team on the field that is consistently in the playoffs. After 1 year, I'm encouraged. But, I'm certainly prepared to say Marv was a great coach but totally blows as a GM, if it comes to that.

Thanks. And I completely agree. We're really close to being a solid, yearly playoff team. But to do that, we need to get and keep that core. DT, OG, LB - solid players there, along with Peters and Pennington and JP on offense and the upgrades on defense and we'll compete for years.

How exactly did the NFL and the refs ensure a Saint victory yesterday? Just curious.

My thought on Willis is that he'll be good enough (perhaps not great) with a great OL. However, even a great back is not going to do much with our OL. So, I think the priority is clear. Why waste time and resources attending to the RB position, when the OL is much more critical? If we get a great line, we can address Willis and all that surrounds him next off season. We all know you can't fixthe entire team, so what I'm talking about is priority, OL over RB. DL over RB. LB over RB. Get the core solid, then worry about the flashy little things like RB.

At 6'3" and about 175 (more or less depending on the breakfast); I'm thinking 3rd string placeholder.

I agree, 4 and 15 is a super long shot. But the season is on the line; take your shot. At that point, they weren't stopping the Saints at all. No way I'd have given them the ball back.

Watching today's 2 games, one thing is clear: In the playoffs you have to be able to run the ball when you want to and stop the run when you need to. Both the Colts and Saints had huge, time eating drives in the 4th quarter when they needed to protect their lead. The one glaring thing from this season was that when the Bills needed it most, they couldn't... run or stop the run. That, above all else should be our goal. And in my opinion, that means the lines and LBs need to be the priority. Everyone considering WRs, CBs or worried about Willis need to look at how the Colts and Saints won these games today. It's clear, we have to control the line of scrimmage.

Who's this We that we're constantly referring to? We'd really like to know.

The problem here though is that someone didn't come in and make a statement such as you suggested. Someone started a new thread for the sole purpose of slamming Schobel. I'd be the first to agree that Freney is a great DE, perhaps light years better than Schobel. However, why say Schobel is not deserving of a Probowl appearance and Freney is; when statistically Schobel clearly had a better season than Freney? Why fabricate an excuse to slam a Bills player that played his butt off and earned a little respect this year?

I might be mistaken, but I think you found the definition of a troll.

Is it just me or does he look like each week he gets a little worse. Seemd he looked better as a rookie than he does now. I wonder how much of it is coaching?

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.