TigerJ

I read that Pamela Anderson had her implants removed a few years ago.

If I were Tom Donahoe and had two second round draft choices, I would stand pat and use them both in the draft rather than trade. I don't think Buffalo needs any more potential stars. They need solid players who can start, especially on both lines. If it looks like Tucker is the answer at left guard and somehow Jennings is re-signed, then Buffalo could afford to go defensive line. While Kelsay seems to be developing nicely and Schobel is a solid player, I still don't think Buffalo is ever going to get a lot out of Ryan Denney or Keith McKenzie. Ritzman is a rookie FA who has some upside, but if he was any kind of lock to develop he'd have been a draft pick. Buffalo has depth now at DT, but Adams and Williams are both on the plus side of thirty.

Good to see you too, Hurls.

I'm not making predictions, but I am very impressed by the Steelers, and Ben Roethlisberger in particular.What they have done with a rookie QB is absolutely unprecedented.

Because the game is in Foxboro, I have to say a NE win is more likely, but to say the Bills have no chance is just plain Patsey fan KzooMike arrogance. The Bills will have to continue to play mistake free ball (relatively speaking). However, this is a far different team than the one NE face in Buffalo earlier this season in the following areas: the emergence of Willis McGahee, much improved execution by the offensive line, Bledsoe's reborn confidence. It also looks like we're beginning to see the blossoming of second year defensive end, Chris Kelsay. The big question is whether or not the Bills can maintain their poise in enemy territory. If they can, a win is very possible.

Maybe when Bannan moves to offensive guard next season, Andreson will be a regular in the rotation. LOL Actually I wouldn't rule it out completely.

The call was right, though before the replay (for the TV audience's sake) showed he dragged (or more correctly bounced) though toe of his left foot, I was thrilled Buffalo might have gotten a break.

All I know is that Buffalo is a very different team from the Rams. It will be interesting to see if NE can cook up any defensive surprises like they did last year. My guess is that it will be hard because the Bills are playing hardnosed football now and not depending on exotic schemes, like Kenvin Gilbride's, top wear down opponents. I think that makes them less vulnerable to Belichick's wrinkles. Stopping Brady and Dillon will be a huge challenge though.

I'm now where near ready to guarrantee a victory over the defending Super Bowl champions, and if push comes to shove I probably have to predict a Patriots win, but I agree they are not invulnerable. They played Troy Brown at CB today because their defensive backfield is so depleted. A Bills win is not totally out of the realm of possibility, now that the team has bought into the Mularkey era and is playing with more discipline.

I'm ecstatic, but I agree, Buffalo struggled so with execution and dumb penalties early in the season, and there are a number of tests they face to demonstrate what kind of talent they have on this team. The first two wins were against subpar opponents. People asked, "Can they beat a quality opponent. Today we did. Next question: "Can Buffalo win on the road, especially against a quality opponent?" If Buffalo can beat NE next week, it is tantamount to a sending a message to the rest of the league, "Buffalo is back and no one had better take them for granted!"

I saw an 8 pointer cross the road driving home last evening. I guessing he weighed in the vicinity of 170. I'm very glad to have missed him. That's the first buck I ever saw crossing the road. It's usually does.

Earlier in the season Buffalo: was losing the turnover battle - no turnovers in the Arizona game, a plus 2 versus the Jets who were best in the league in turnover ratio was terrible in the red zone -now scoring in the red zone couldn't score on the ground -now scoring on the ground gave up a boatload of sacks -wasn't sacked today (can't recall last week, but there weren't many) couldn't buy a sack from the LDE spot -got a sack today from Kelsay I think they're starting to get it.

I think McGahee's presence is a factor, both in Bledsoe's improved productivity and the line's improve play, but I think there are other factors too. I think Bledsoe is really working on changing his approach to the game with help from Sam Wyche, and I think the coaching of JimMcNally is having a positive effect on the line. Maybe Tom Donahoe was right after all. He said we sould just wait, that the team would get a lot better.

The wind is our friend. It will limit Pennington's effectiveness and keep Bledsoe from trying to pass too much. That, plus a healthy Jonas Jennings (unlike the first Jets game) should limit the impact of the Jets pass rush as well as prevent Pennington from beating the Bills with his arm. With the passing game taken out of the equation, it will be running game versus run defense for both teams. Special teams will also be huge. Buffalo can compete very well in both areas.

Looks like he's got a number of things going for him. First, it looks like he's mastered the knack of making people miss with little moves. You don't always have to do a big move to make someone miss. A big move sacrifices momentum and lets other players get into the play. He doesn't waste motion faking guys out. Second, he has great balance. Third, he's fast enough. I saw other players running just about as fast, so I'm guessing he's not world class fast, but once he got past people they didn't catch up. I hope for his sake he can grow two or three more inches and put on 35 lbs. As talented as he is, it still might be tough for him physically to be a full time running back in college and later in the pros at 5'8" and 165 lbs. Fortunately, as a freshman, the odds are pretty good he's not done growing.

It's definitely "out of the box" but in view of the fact that Bannan is already getting something of a tryout there, I wouldn't rule it out. I don't see him full time this year, but If the Bills are thinking in that direction, Bannan will get the full treatment during the offseason to get him ready for next year. He will never be a starter at DT, and backup DTs are easier to find than starting guards.

Just my two cents, but there are nice enough areas north of the city, I would not buy in the southern burbs as nice as East Aurora is. I'm not real familiar, with the area, but on a couple occasions, I've had to drive up past UB on the way to Lockport, and just minutes north of UB are some residential areas that seem quiet and pleasant. I would start close, and if I can't find something there, work my way out from UB.

You need a good line. Has anyone heard the radio commercial where a girl catches a guy staring at her thong, then he spins this yarn about it reminding him of his puppy's leash? Pretty funny stuff.

Both Teague and Tucker are very bright and can make the line calls. Tucker is stronger at the point of attack, but Teague is more athletic and get downfield to make blocks that Tucker can't. I don't mind either of them.

Well I'm glad he signed with WGR and didn't wait to be waived.

It might have been safer to try and convert the Detroit Lions to Christianity.

What everyone else said. Also, don't be a stranger here. We'll give you lots to talk about on your morning show.

Bill Parment is a state assembleyman. Our State senator, Pat McGee didn't have to run in this election. I agree that in one sense US senators and congressman don't have too much say about helping local economies, besides securing federal grand money and a number of other tricks that are widely used, which in the final analyssis may be bad for the country as a whole. I'm talking about "porkbarrel spending." "If you vote to spend money in my district, I'll vote to spend money in your district." In essence congressmen use our (tax) money to buy our votes. The sick truth is it works. We keep voting them in because they "bring money into the area." But since they all do it, it just drives up taxes and deficit spending. I have nothing against women in political office. I think Clinton will have strong opposition when she runs for reelection mostly because the Clintons are pollitical lighting rods. Personally, I'm a long ways from Hillary on the political spectrum, but that doesn't have anything to do with my opinion about when she runs for reelection..

There were at least two races , for Chuck Schumer and our local state assembleyman, Bill Parment, where I think the Republican party in essence wrote off the republican candidates because they figured there was no chance to win. Hence, no fundraising help. I saw almost no advertizing for Schumer's opponent, and nothing for Bill Parments republican opponent. My guess is there will be a legitimate campaign when Hillary Clinton comes up for reelection.

My 21 year old son was among the non-voters for exactly the same reason. I told him, "You may not be in love with any of them, but you pick the guy whose views are closest to yours, and maybe if he's elected it'll make things a little better. Vote third party if you really can't stomach Kerry or Bush." It didn't motivate him. His political views, BTW, are different from mine.