Dan

You're absolutely right and, really, there's no reason to even argue it. Wanny approving/disapproving Edwards in-game calls is the epitome of dysfunction. Now, on the other hand, I can easily see Wanny and Edwards reviewing film and talking all week about what the defense should be doing, what calls should be made when, etc.; thereby, giving Wanny plenty of input and "control". But, publicly and to the team, it'll be Edwards show. That's how it has to be; that's how it should be.

We just watched Winter's Bone and... yep.. my initial pre-watch impression was spot on. It is very well done and acted all that jazz. But, entirely too slow-paced and melancholy for my tastes. Not a single person smiled in the entire movie. If I'm that chick, I would have shot my self to escape the depression of my life.

Tosh.0's Spoiler alert

I didn't mind The Other Guys so much. It's not great, but had some decent moments. It's a Will Farrell comedy (although I thought he was toned down a little). So, you pretty much know what you're getting. The Town, I agree. Good movie and very much enjoyed it. Scott Pilgrim. Different, but entertaining is a good description. IMO. I liked it, but it's certainly a different kind of movie. A little odd, but you somehow keep watching it to see what's going to happen. Social Network - saw that last week. Good movie. Watch it. We rented Buried last night. Didn't care much for it. It's an interesting idea for a movie. It kinds held my interest. But, by about half way through.. I just found myself calling the guy an idiot. Not to give anything away, but some of the scenes were like.. really? really? And I was cussing. So, in the end... I didn't like it. Tonight we got Winter Bone. I'm not optimistic, despite the hype. I'm expecting a rather slow, let's all stand around and talk, but no one really do anything movie that ends in some half-baked climax scene that leaves me thinking I'm just glad it's over, now I can watch Ancient Aliens.

That's exactly how I see it, as well. Look at the training Trent put in during the off seasons to get better. He did that because he knew he was the starter and he was trying to get better. Of course, he just didn't have the mental tools to make it. But, it'll be really interesting to see if Fitz makes a similar effort to improve his accuracy this off season. IMO, you do that with a lot of core strengthening and working on your technique. Knowing that he's almost certainly the starter next year, I'd expect/hope to hear of him working hard all off season to improve the physical aspect of his game.

I agree the goal should be win the Super Bowl and it should be clearly stated each day. However, you don't necessarily fire people and blow things up if that goal isn't reached every day. Because, IMO, someone at the top has to temper that goal against the harsh light of realistic expectations. You then make the necessary changes each off season to address the reality of what occurred to once again achieve the goal. For example, we needed more coaching brains on the defense.. so you bring in DW. You don't have to blow the defense up; but you do have to realize there's a problem and address it. Now after a certain time, when your changes just aren't resulting in progress; then yeah you blow it up. IMO, 2 years is not enough time. I disagree about not waning to make the playoffs next year, for 2 reasons: (1) you never know what may happen (ala the Jets last year backing in to the playoffs and then before you know it they're in the Championship game) and (2) the experience, confidence, and motivation if gives the players is invaluable. So, I'll take a blowout loss in the playoffs any day over just missing them. Also, yeah Seattle got blown out against the Bears, but that was in the divisional round; they beat the defending SB champs the week before. But, now tey all have confidence in the coaching staff, they're motivated to get back there again, and when/if they do they'll have this year's experience to draw upon to better handle the pressure.

You can all be pretty well assured that the Jets WILL NOT win it all this year. In fact, they won't beat the Steelers. Why? How can I be so confident? Because I picked them to win this week in my pick'em pool. I've had the worst luck ever with my picks and my sister is kickin my a:censored:. So, you see... if the Jets win, that means I win. And, this year, I don't win.

Perhaps not. But, it is a little refreshing to see that Nix and Gailey didn't just stay the course and not make any changes to the defensive staff. And, you know, in the past, that's exactly what this franchise would have done. They would have fed us some bull that it's not all bad and we have to give it time. In the end, this FO and Chan haven't made all the right decisions - some have been downright incredulous (extending Kelsay). But, it's a positive sign that they're able to see at least some of this team's problems and then that they're willing to try and fix them. Will hiring DW help the defense next year? We'll see. But, it's really hard to see how this isn't an upgrade for our team. I guess we could argue that there was a better defensive guy to bring in; but I'm not sure there was. Not because DW is so damn great, but just that potentially better coaches were either hired or just may not have wanted to come here.

What ..realistic.. move would you like to see this franchise make that you wouldn't label as a "publicity stunt"? Wanny is a solid, experienced coaching hire that addresses one of, if not the greatest need on our coaching staff. He's not the savior of the team and I haven't seen anyone say that he is. But, I have seen quite a few people rightfully excited that the FO addressed a glaring weakness on the team. How can you complain about the players they still have/haven't brought in yet? Seriously. I think you're just looking for reasons to complain. The season, like it or not, is still ongoing. Free agency hasn't started yet. The CBA is miles away from being settled. And you're upset they haven't revamped the defensive line yet? Look, I'll be right with you come August if no new players are brought in; but we're a long way from that. Until then, you're playing your cards entirely too soon.

First of all, I love this hire. I've said since Sept. that Edwards was in over his head as DC. DC was a major weakness on this team. This hire is further proof that the guys in charge may actually be able to recognize what needs to be fixed and then are actually trying to fix it. Quite refreshing, to say the least. I don't think Wanny will really assume the DC responsibilities as such, but as per Gailey's comments a week or so ago when DW was here; I think he said something to the effect of wanting to make sure everyone would be able to work together and not let their egos get in the way. That tells me, at least, that there will be a good deal of sharing or ideas and working together between Edwards and DW. I think the final answer on all things defense will ultimately be Edwards, but he has someone with a lot of experience to help him. And if he doesn't let his ego get in the way, he'll take DW's advice more often than not. Regarding the title of Asst. HC; could it be something as simple as a way to pay him properly? Many companies have pay scales for each title/position. Perhaps, the LBs coach carries a top salary much lower than what DW wanted. So, by adding Asst. HC to his title it opend the door for a higher pay scale. It's something accounting apartments often insist on. Pure speculation, but isn't that all anyone has? Either way, I don't think it influences the pecking order of the coaching staff and who's responsible for what. Edwards, I think, will be the DC and the defensive decisions/calls will ultimately be on his shoulders. But, he has an experienced adviser from which to work with each and every day. And, as Chan suggested, he wanted to make sure both guys would work together in that capacity, first.

Thanks for the suggestions! I've heard good things from other guys about Thurman Cafe, but haven't been yet. I'll definitely have to check it out. Gotta love the Grill and Skillet!

Not too many more... but for breakfast I really like the Grillet and Skillet. It's a complete greasy spoon diner further down Main St. Just a great place to get some eggs. Then there's Bag of Nails Pub (I think that's the name). Of course, there's Katsinger's(?) deli near down town. Great deli! And then a few places by the University, that I couldn't recall the names if I had to. Great town and area. One of my favorite places to visit , believe it or not. Unbelievable! I've never had a bad meal there. It's always been excellent for me. What are some of the other places? I'm always looking for a new favorite place.

Similar to PTR's comment, what's your definition of a franchise QB? How is Schaub a franchise guy, but Eli is just a solid starter? For that matter, how are most all of your "solid starters" not considered franchise QBs? Vick was the unquestioned starter and face of the Falcons, and the league for that matter. Yet he's not a franchise QB? Ryan and Flacco are the unquestioned starters from day 1 and aren't being benched any time soon. But, they're not franchise QBs? IMO, a franchise QB designation should be less about stats or wins (which your determination seems to be based) and more about his position with the team. Flacco, for example, is a franchise QB. Debate his stats all you want, but he's the Ravens starter and the team has zero interest in trying to replace him. Ryan, Cutler, Eli on your list all fit that bill. For that matter, I think you could add a few guys like Freeman in Tampa, Sanchez, Romo, and Bradford (off the top of my head) to the list. Not all franchise QBs pan out and win championships or even play for 10-15 years - lots of variables affect that. But, that's what separates the greats from the also rans. Romo, for example, is the face of Dallas and has been their QB for several years and by all accounts will be their QB next year. I doubt he'll ever take them to the SB, but that doesn't mean he isn't a franchise QB. He's just not a very good one.

Despite still being a very solid team, and a team the Bills can't beat, the Patriots* are definitely a team on the down swing. For all the talk every year about them winning the Superbowl, the last one they won was 6 seasons ago. Of course, they lost 2 years ago, but the last two years they've been one and done in the playoffs. As long as they have the core of the team there - Brady, Belichick, and a few others - they'll be competitive. But, I think it's time for Pats* fans to realize that their best days are well behind them and growing smaller in the mirror every season.

I probably shouldn't have included the link, huh? Dang it! I do love that place though... go almost every time I'm in town which I hope is in about 2 weeks.

Looking at the voting results.. it makes you wonder how these franchise chain places stay in business!! I travel quite a bit and always prefer a local restaurant over the chain places. But, I'll say that the overriding decision point (for me) usually revolves around quality of food and appearance of the place. Quality of food is a given... if your food sucks, why would I go there. The advantage of a larger franchise place is you know pretty much what you're going to get walking in. IHop is IHop, Texas Roadhouse is Texas Roadhouse. You expect a certain quality of food, cleanliness and type of staff when you walk in those places. You don't always get it, but that tends to turn you off on that one restaurant not the chain overall. The problem, as I see it, for the local shop is... how do you get someone to walk in your door and determine that you have better quality food? You get some business just by being local and it's easy for people living/shopping nearby to walk in. But, that's probably limited business. If you've got enough of that business, you can have a dirty hole in the wall and you stay alive. I find those places when I'm with a local that says... trust me the food is worth it. There's a place in Idaho Falls (Rutabega's) that's like that. From the outside, you'd probably never walk in. It's in a small building, you can't see in, you'd hardly know it's a restaurant at all. Walk in and the place is great with some of the best food anywhere I've been. Anther great one is Vino's in Little Rock. Pizza place that looks a little skeevy to walk in based on the neighborhood but a local said I had to - best pizza in town. It is - I go every time I'm back there. But, if you want to try and get a completely new customer. You do that by having a clean, well-lit restaurant; professionally signed with a cleaned parking lot and exterior. Essentially, you need to look like a clean, safe, inviting place for a stranger to walk into. Giuseppe's Ritrivo in Bexley, OH (Columbus) is a great place. Driving down the street, you can see inside the windows, clean place, lots of hot girls waiting on the tables; a little bar area for lounging while you wait. Why wouldn't you go in to try it out? I did and it's one of my favorite places anywhere - a little pricey, but hey... what's money, right? Interesting that no one here has said anything about price, either. I guess we're an elitist bunch here - no chain food and damn the price! But, I'd add that if you're in an area with other restaurants, especially pizza places, you need to be priced comparatively. There's a pizza place in Chicago - Bacci's (it's a local chain place). They don't have the best pizza in town; but I can get a ginormous slice and medium coke for $5. That's a great deal for lunch. Hence, they get my business when I'm in a hurry and just need to eat and go. Bottom line: IMO, make a great pizza (maybe calzone too) first, then figure out the best way to get the customers you want in the door. Just a few things to think about.

My wife and I enjoy these show as well. We've seen them all.. several times. A few points that come to my mind while watching them... They have to make a few leaps in their logic or thinking. Otherwise, there wouldn't be much of a show. First, we can't definitely prove aliens were here. And second, logic tends to dictate a simpler answer that can be proven. So, I think they have to make a few "jumps" to carry the storyline further and in a more interesting direction. I've never quite bought into the whole, ancient civilizations weren't advanced enough to build or do certain things. I think there's an ego centric bias in that thinking. It's amazing what people can visualize and do when they don't have a TV running all day and night draining their brain. I think it's more logical to conclude that human civilization has lost just as much technology and knowledge through the sands of time and war as we've lost entire cities and cultures. I've never quite followed the logic either that there's ancient carvings, sculptures, what have you of flying objects. Therefore, these people must have seen something flying. Why would they put them in artwork if they didn't exist? I'd offer for the same reason that we do it today. They had imagination and used that imagination to tell stories. Imagine our culture being wiped out in some catastrophic event and a few thousand years someone finds a few toys from the movie star wars and concludes that these things were real. I think it important to remember that we're only seeing a small window of what an ancient civilization was like. We only see what survives, not everything that it encompassed. Yet, everything discovered is viewed in the light of having some great meaning. Maybe? But, maybe some guy was just making some crap up to tell some story.

Jets are proving it's hell for the Bills to be in this division! We have to go against a team that been in the AFC championship game for 2 consecutive years and then you have Pats*. How do we ever get to the playoffs?

...and we should all continue to blame Donte for being drafted. Why couldn't he have just told the Bills when the called him that he didn't deserve to be drafted that high and respectfully hang up the phone? It's all his fault!

That's an understatement IMO. I've contended for years that they're literally wasting roster spots by keeping the 2 or 3 TEs they have. Have any of our TEs done anything? It's like we're playing with 10 guys on offense. I say cut them all and add a few players that might actually contribute something to the team.

yes

For me at least, it's not about whether or not we can do better than Donte; it's about creating a hole just to fill it again. Donte is a good safety. Not great, not top 5, but plenty good enough to start. If you let him walk, you'll have to replace him. OK, George Wilson but, then who's backup? You need depth. Right now, our secondary is set. Is it the best in the league? No. But, it's by far not the worst unit on the team. IMO, if you want to build a winning team, you leave the functioning pieces alone and concentrate on the areas (LB, DLine, TE) that are completely non-functioning. Yeah, maybe Whitner wants too much money. My only question there would be does paying him $7mill/yr restrict you from signing the right players in other areas of need. As far under the cap as this team is, I'm not at all convinced paying him a few million more is going to hurt the team. Maybe give him some of Kelsay's money. Because if I had my choice.. I'd take Whitner on this team any day of the week over Kelsay. If anything, seeing Nix re-sign Kelsay and potentially letting Whitner walk, gives me great pause as to his abilities to evaluate the needs of this team and how to address them.

Actually, I was thinking about congress on the state level. I guess you could argue that, that's still too broad and it should be county level laws. I'd imagine there's pros and cons to both.

American Idol gets some of the highest ratings out there. Is that quality TV? I highly doubt it. Just because you're popular doesn't mean you're of high quality. It just means you're able to tell/show the people what they want to hear/see in a way they want to hear/see. I do agree competition tends to make things better. But, that's not always the case either. And, believe me, I'd never say that only hardcore conservatives watch FOX because I watch it quite frequently and I'd be reluctant to call myself a hardcore conservative.

I understand the concept quite well. I just don't insinuate that diversification means increased quality. Increased quality is certainly a possibility of diversification, but it's not a given by any means. I think we could also agree that quality is in the eye of the viewer as well.