leonbus23

Sherman almost topped Brady as my least favorite player after last year's MNF game. Hate that guy.

Whaley

We need to keep score here on this one. Whose side to choose? T-Bomb, John from Hemet, nidirsih, the wiz; it's all so exciting! Beane and his all-stars thrown in there, too! Go Bills!

Was EJ Whaley's guy or Nix?

Skipper from Jacksonville.

Just ordered it. Thanks for making me aware of the book!

62 catches. 943 yards. 6 tds. Then the unreadable "keep him or not" debate here.

"Kim, myself, Russ was involved, and others" Who were these others?

I wonder if Overdorf had any input.

Zprayn Jones. Sorry.

Better than Lake Erie during the 70s.

Rochester to Buffalo is always a two hour drive. San Diego to L.A. could be three to four hours much of the time. One or two fender benders on the 5, 10, 15, 105, 110, 405, 605, 805, etc. with 10,000,000 people in the region always slows that drive down. I have tickets for the Bills vs. Chargers game and I rented a hotel for Sat. night because of the traffic. As of now, 2:48pm Pac Time it's 3:05 one way and 2:53 back. And rush hour hasn't totally kicked in. Granted games are on Sunday, so who knows! But it's not Roch to Buff.

Listened to this on the radio. I was 7 years old. Bell had the huge run early. Great memory.

To be more accurate, skepticism is the wrong word. The correct word is pessimism.

This should be worst sports teams, not cities. Buffalo is a great sports city! San Diego is not as bad as it's made out to be. The older generations really wanted the Chargers to stay. The younger generations are more concerned with politics and economics and for fun will surf, dirt bike, hike, and so on. Interestingly, Buffalo is a terrible place to live while San Diego is absolutely incredible. I think this correlates to the dedication to the local sports teams.

If our defense can improved just a little bit we have a decent chance to sneak into the playoffs. There are several teams on the schedule we can beat even with only a slightly improved defensive performance because these teams either have suspect offenses (SO) or were basically not that good overall (NTG) last season: Jets Twice (SO/NTG) Obviously not a very good team. Bengals (SO/NTG) Beat them last year. Can do it again. Chargers (NTG) Very inconsistent. Susceptible to turnovers and mistakes. Chiefs (SO) Smith can be stopped. Not a high flying offense. Colts (SO/NTG) Poor defense. Generally suspect coaching. Almost a one player team. Broncos (SO) Poor offense. Dolphins Twice (SO) Slow down the run. Panthers (NTG) Last season was bad compared to two seasons ago. Just slow down Cam. Then, the other teams we face have really great offenses where our defense needs to play much better. Patriots Falcons Raiders Buccaneers Saints We can reasonably win 8 games from the first list with just a little bit better defensive performance. With a much better defensive performance, maybe we can win two games from the bottom list. A couple teams are in the middle and perhaps there should be a middle list. Carolina can be great at times. The Chiefs are usually a really great team and hard to beat. Rivers and Luck can have huge games. The Saints, Bucs, Falcons, and Raiders defenses can be terrible. Regardless, the key is for us to maintain our offensive scoring from last year and just get some sort of improvement on defense. I suppose it's possible with our defensive draft picks over the past two years. If Lawson, Ragland, and White play great and Darby returns to form, who knows? We still have Hughes, Dareus, and Williams!

Great man. Great legacy. Reminds me of Elliot Rosewater.

Overdorf too!

What does he do anyway? For years now, I've read so many different assertions about what this guy does, that it's impossible to sift through all of the claims to find a definitive answer.

Thank you P51. The NFL is still fun to watch without this kind of violence. We all realize violence is part of the game, but it can be limited with specific regulations. Some may rather watch more extreme violence in football while others may prefer a less violent form. It seems advantageous for us to side on the less violent type of football for legal reasons (recent lawsuits, etc.) and, more importantly, for player safety. Again, we all know the arguments for the violence, but all that is suggested is a form of football that is less violent by rule, and also by players being aware enough to make a wiser decision in the heat of the moment. Obviously, the game moves fast and players cannot think deeply about each action and its consequence. Therefore, rules are necessary, but so is player awareness. We see players hold up on hits or avoid contact and perhaps that type of football is better for bigger reasons (health being one). I think the major rift is between those who view ultra violent hits as "just part of the game" or "@*$k the players, they get paid and signed up for it," and those who are a bit more concerned about health and sportsmanship. Landry's hit was ultra violent and extreme. Whether it was necessary or not, whether it was legal or not has no relationship to the brute violence of the hit. Some prefer to watch without witnessing this sort of violence. Others range from unconcerned to agreement with this sort of violence. I suppose this is what we bring to the game as individuals. I would surmise that those who rather a safer game with lighter violence are different types of people than those who support a more violent game. I love watching football, but the Landry hit and others like it kind of bother me. I can think of the hit on the Bengals punter and so on, and I think "why did he do that?" These types of hits are fairly rare. Maybe one a weekend, sometimes none, sometimes a couple. But certainly not the norm. I fully realize that I am not forced to watch this sport. I know this. But if regulations can be in place that greatly limit this type of violence, I agree with them. Personally, I do care about the health of the players from local children's leagues to high school to pro. Regardless of legality, the teams involved, etc. this hit by Landry is bothersome. It is hard to shrug off so easily as many can. Of course, I am alluding to a bigger discussion about human violence and tolerance for violence and so on. But I'll save that for a different context.

Exactly stuvian.

I like that it's a memo. Could have used a proofread. Regardless, the "earth to..." preface might have been more effective than a memo. But the memo works.

Whaley must be doing something. I mean this in the most basic sense.

Wouldn't be a bad pickup. Thomas is unknown and O'Leary has barely played in the NFL. So, perhaps picking up a known quantity may be a good idea.

Seems like a safe pick. I would have preferred a more sexual pick.