Dan

And as the Democrats have shown time and time again, having the majority means little. For various reasons, the Republicans are able to obtain voting unison much more readily and frequently than the Democrats. So, if 1, 2, or 3 democrats don't vote on party lines; then their majority means little. And how many times over the last 2 years has their been 100% Democrat backing on a bill. Hence, this bill, like all the others, needs at least a couple of Republican votes. In this instance, they're getting none.

With all due respect, are you not using talking points and media spin in your statements above? You're stating that Congress needs another month or two to make sure al lthe i's and t's are dotted. But, in fact, the Bill was first introduced on Feb. 4, 2009. It's undergone quite a bit of discussion and revision since that time. But, how much longer is needed to verify the contents the bill? This bill isn't being rushed to passage; it's been tossed around Congress for nearly 2 years. There are certainly politics at play here - on both sides. I agree, nothing in Washington gets done without serious political undertones. However, this is a fairly straightforward Bill (as far as congressional bills go). Help first responders that are now sick and pay for it by closing a corporate tax loop hole. You state it'll get passed in the next couple of months, so what's the rush. To that I pose 2 questions: How do you tell someone that's dieing now to wait 2 months for proper health care? What's going to change in the Bill in the next 2 months that makes it more palatable for passage? Normally I don't like to blame one party over the other; but in this case, it's entirely the Republican party that's preventing this thing from coming to the floor. I think it reasonable they get the fair share of the blame for this one.

I've been saying it for years....Brady is a true pocket passer that relies on timing routes and quick slants over the middle. The way you beat that is to get pressure on him right up the middle. Get someone in his face on every down and knock him around as much as possible. Man the corners up and jam the WRs at the line to throw off the timing. The one thing to consider is the hot read becomes the quick slant over the middle; so you know that going in. Put your best coverage LB in the middle and light Welker up. But, there's absolutely no reason to just rush 3 or 4 guys and let Brady have all day to pick you apart. He's proven time and time again, that he'll beat that. So, I agree with the OP; knock him on his every chance you get. Yes, you may give up some long gain; you will get some penalties. But, you have to rattle him and he's shown that he can be rattled with steady and constant pressure in his face. He's perhaps one of the most pansy Qbs to ever play the game... get his jersey dirty and he'll get frustrated and rush his throws.

I must admit... this past off season, the Redskins were making all the moves I would have hoped the Bills would make. In fact, the Bills did try to make these moves - Shanny and McNabb were both courted by the Bills. I really thought Skins would be a team on the rise this year, and Buffalo with its far less than desirable hires would continue in their mediocrity. (The only thing different I would have done if I were Washington would have been to draft a young QB to take McNabb's place in a couple of years.) I guess this all shows why I'm not an NFL GM. Although it's entirely too early to draw any firm conclusions; the Skins appear to be in worse shape than ever; while the Bills are the "feel-good" story of the last half of the season. It'll be really interesting to watch these two teams over the next couple of years. Both teams have been pretty bad, both teams made major changes in 2010, yet each team took very much different approaches to their rebuild. It'll be quite interesting to see how each team fairs over the next couple of years; especially when you consider the Bills (appeared at least) to really want Shanahan and McNabb.

Wasn't that what we were saying last year about the offense? The line sucked, no WRs, journey backup in Fitz, etc. Insert a decent offensive-minded coach and half those problems seem less severe. How can you be so certain that a significant portion of the defenses problems aren't because the coaching sucks?

Excellent strategy... score fast on every possession. I like it.

If anyone went into this year expecting more than 3 or 4 wins, they were delusional. So, you kinda have to throw the record out the window. I can say I'm happy with the team because the offense has certainly improved as the season progressed. Fitz looks more and more like a starting QB. The line doesn't seem nearly as dismal as it did last year. Stevie has shown that he can be a legitimate WR in the league. Gailey appears to have a clue. Prior to the season, I had zero confidence he'd be competent let alone actually able to moivate this team and get them to play hard. The defense still leaves quite a bit to be desired. Although they seem to be improving as well; I'm not convinced just yet. I'm still in no way sold on our assistant HCs. But, I'll give them another year because, after all, what else can I do... B word endlessly on a message board? So, overall, I'd say I'm happy with the Bills. Of course, we'll see what happens this off season to see if that feeling is sustained or shot down in flames.

Easily the best post game write up out there (if we could get Lori's pregame write ups back, we'd have a perfect world of Bills analysis and breakdown). I look forward to your comments each week. It's posts and "meaningless" opinions such as these that make this the best and only place to get Bills info and discussion. Thanks for sharing your opinions.

I think there's a few things to consider: The 0 for the 70's was 30-40 years ago. Most, or certainly a large portion, of the posters here probably weren't alive that long ago. So, the hatred from that time tends to fade. Especially when you consider many of the younger fans grew up n the 90's when the Bills regularly beat the Fish. Furthermore, the younger generation of Bills fans have their own streak of futility... against the Pats*. Beating the Pats* only one time in the last decade has given many fans a new favorite team to hate. Add to it the fact that the Fins haven't really been that good of a team for the last 10 years (nor have the Bills), and you get general apathy. So, yeah, the passion for squishin some fish is dwindling with each year of sucktitude and with each each Pat* win over the Bills.

The point I made had nothing to do with compliance or mediocrity. I was simply asking for rational, factual thought. To suggest that drafting a QB with our first draft pick would be done with the primary motivation of marketing is disingenuous in the least. We've needed a franchise QB for quite some time. We all know that. Now when the owner finally agrees and says we'll draft one; it gets spun into a marketing ploy? Come on. You can't have it both ways. Is Ralph cheap for not bringing in a franchise QB or is he only thinking about making money when he drafts one? It's quite analogous to the TO situation last year. It's been widely touted as a marketing move. Yet, everyone saying that ignores the fact that the FO brought in every decent FA WR prior to TO being cut. So, how do you reconcile that? They were clearly looking for a WR, then TO got cut; then they signed TO; then they were accused of making a move just to sell tickets. It doesn't add up. It's been said Ralph went cheap with the hiring of Gailey. But, did he not try desperately to hire Shanny, even reportedly offering him a share of the team? In the end, perhaps he cheaped out; but maybe because it was his only real option when every top flight coach on the list turned them down. I ask, again, what moves could be made that are actually considered good for the team and do not carry some ulterior motives to either make money or save money?

Ya know... it really is nonsense to thinK that the majority of moves made by the Bills are done so at the direction of Ralph to make money. While, yes, I'll agree that making money is an important factor in many decisions; but you could say that about every franchise in the league. Do you honestly think there's an owner out there that says, profits be damned just do whatever you guys want? To think bringing in a new QB is a marketing ploy is right up there with thinking that TO was only brought in as a marketing ploy last year. It ignores the facts. And the facts are that last year the Bills tried numerous times to upgrade the WR position and were rejected each time by the FAs. It wasn't until TO was released and had no where to go that he was brought in. Of course, they marketed him; but if that's the only reason they brought TO in was to sell tickets; then why did they try several times before that to bring in WRs? Now, the facts are we've had horrible QBs for years... years. Yeah, Fitz has begun to play well; but at the time of Ralph's comments we were a long way from thinking Fitz could be a good starter. Yet, when they talk about bringing in a new QB, it's suddenly a marketing move? I suppose if the Bills stay with Brohm and Levi, then Ralph's being cheap? Let me ask... is there anything the FO can do that's right? Because it sure doesn't seem that way.

Stats and numbers are for sissies. Just make some stuff up and state it long enough... that's all you gotta do. Now man up, and shout out counter stats if you want to refute the claim.

Major assumptive flaw in your argument.

No worries. I didn't mean to sound chippy. I guess I was having a bad evening and the thought of someone thinking I might be creative... well it just put me over the edge.

Excuse me? My screen name is only 3 letters and they're my real name.... you can't get less creative than that. I bet Kevin's not even his real name. Honestly... I really get no respect around here.

Actually, I think it'd be better if more people didn't make sweeping generalizations about rookies in preseason. But, I agree, it's nice to see someone admit they may have been wrong about a player. All too often, it seems people make up their mind about someone and then become hell bent on proving themselves right for the remainder of the guy's career.

And with that I can wholeheartedly agree!

thanks

They're certainly trying, to say the least. Is it me or are they bringing in a lot of guys for tryouts? Do all teams do this? I really don't recall the previous FO making this many in-season moves. I fully expect Evans to go in IR just so they can get another guy in for a few weeks.

I wouldn't say they're Pretty Bad. I'd say, they're Pretty Average. He's right at middle of the pack overall.

I guess we just have different ideas on what we'd like to see. You seem to prefer selling out and doing whatever is possible for one SB season next year. I'd prefer the Bills build a foundation so they can have multiple SB seasons over the next decade. By your definition almost half the SB winning teams had a great turnaround in one season to win it all (I'm not going back to look at everyone's record pre-SB year so I made a blanket statement). The Rams did not go from bad to good in one season. They hired a new HC and began to put the pieces in place; then 3 years later they got to the SB. And, mostly because they lucked out and had Kurt Warner on their roster. And all of those other teams you mentioned haven't gone from perennial losers to SB contender in one year during this decade... the Chiefs? the Jags? really? My initial point was about the Dolphins. They had a great turnaround year... going from 1-15 to 11-5. Yes, that's great. But, not even you are talking about improving in one season to just make the playoffs. And that's the example that most people bring to the table when they complain that the Bills aren't doing it fast enough. To be comparable to the Bills, give me an example of a team that's had a losing record for 5+ years, hired a new FO, HC, and then turned it around the next year. That's what I'm suggesting hasn't happened because that's what people continually suggest should happen. We all want to win the Super Bowl, some of us would like to win more than one. But, to completely revamp this team in one year is unprecedented. Even if the Bills make it next year, it would still have been a 2 year turn around. This is year 1 of a rebuild. They've, hopefully, laid a foundation from which to build. I expect/hope that next year we'll see significant progress. If so, then they're on the right track. But there's a lot more to winning a SB than just getting a few players on your team and then going out and winning it all. In fact, if you look at each of the SB winning teams, you'll find that most all of them had certain key pieces in place for many years before they finally changed the HC or got a RB or added whatever final piece to finally get to and/or win the big one. The Saints last year had a great year and finally won one. But how long was Brees on that team first - 3 years prior to '09. My question to you is do you have the patience to wait 3-4 years for the current regime to get to the SB? Because it's far more likely that the pieces they're putting in place now will take at least that long to produce consistently. That's just one of the reasons why drafting the wrong QB can set a franchise back for years (and how many of those bad drafts have we endured this past decade).

Exactly. There's no reason to even consider trading Lee (other than posters here have been trying to run him out of town since he signed a big contract). You don't improve your team by continually making holes that need to be filled. Now, with that said, we appear to be stacked at WR. So, if the remaining guys can show they're capable over the remaining 3 weeks, maybe we have some trade bait to improve some of the other areas on the team while keeping the WR position a strength. The Pats* have clearly shown the value of cutting a player while he still has some perceived value to get draft picks, while having competent guys to step up. It would be refreshing to think our FO has the capabilities to make such maneuvers. I'll refrain from judgment just yet though.

I'll wait and see how Stevie and Nelson do in Lee's absence before I'll even consider trading Lee. Lee is still the bests WR on the team and his presence has played a large role in allowing Stevie to get open, IMO. So, at this point, I'll say I hope and think he'll be back.

Thanks and I agree. I think this team has made some pretty decent strides this season - far more than I would have thought at the half way point. With the addition of a few more players (plus an easier schedule), I can easily see them in the run for a Wild Card spot next season. Then in year 3, with more additions, be a true contender for the play offs. And if things are done right; they'll remain contenders for many years to come. I can live with that and I'd much rather have that than a bunch of flashy moves in hopes to make the playoffs for a season. Even if you're lucky and make it, you're sacrificing long term success for short term gains. The Bills have been bad for a long time. It's going to take a but more to turn this around than a few one year flashy moves - that was my initial point. Of course, Nix and Gailey could be bums and the whole thing could blow up in our face for any number of reasons. I guess only time will tell.

Hmm... 1997 SL Rams: 5-11 1998 SL Rams: 4-12 1999 SL Rams: 13-3 The Rams have been bad for quite some time and continue to be bad. I'll further add that Vermeil was hired in 1997; it took him 3 years to get to the SB. But, you could perhaps argue they got lucky as heck in signing Kurt Warner (a complete nobody). Warner made that team more than anything else as witnessed by their lack of success before and after his tenure. 1999 Ravens: 6-10 1999 Ravens: 8-8 2000 Ravens: 12-4 I'd hardly call 8-8 a bad team. Furthermore, Billick took over in 1999. So, wouldn't that be a 2 year rebuild. 1999 NE Pats* - 9-7 1999 NE Pats* - 8-8 2000 NE Pats* - 5-11 2001 NE Pats* - 11-5 Seems like they were a pretty average team for the 3 years prior to their SB win. Also, BB was named the HC before the 2000 season. Again, at best, I think you can call that a 2 year turn around. Finally, the Pats* were in the SB after the '96 season. So, that's only 5 years between SB appearances. How bad of a team could that 2000 team have really been? 2005 NYG - 11-5 2006 NYG - 8-8 2007 NYG - 10-6 So, how bad of a team were the Giants before their SB run? They had won their division just 2 years earlier. Then, in their down year, they still went 8-8. At best you've gotten 2 - 2 year turn arounds; 1 - 3 year rebuild; and the Giants who were pretty good and arguably underachieving prior. But, even in those cases I think it's safe to say those teams had far more players in place than the 2009 Bills. The Bills haven't made the playoffs in a decade because they're a really bad team.. not a team with several great players and just missing the final few pieces. Face it, rebuilding the Bills is far closer to rebuilding the Lions or the Cardinals than it is a perennially good/decent team. We're in the middle of a decade of losing, not a few years removed from having a playoff team.