Buffalo03

I wanna say maybe the Jordan Poyer pick 6 on Brady in New England in 2017?

There haven't been that many number 1 pick QBs that have won a SB. I get what you're saying. But that's not the way that NFL teams see it. They know that a franchise QB is the most important player on the field. They know in order to get one that they will more than likely have to draft for one. They know the best way to get the guy they want is to get the number 1 pick. They know the way to get that pick is to tank the season. Getting the guy they want 1st overall doesn't guarantee a SB win but you better believe they are gonna want to take the chance and the answer to your other question, their backup QB was Curtis Painter and I think Jim Sorgi? My point in brought up in my last post was they made no effort to get a better QB at all. They saw an opportunity to get the successor to Peyton and took it. Look at what the Dolphins did a few years ago when Tannehill went down, they went as far as getting Jay Cutler out of retirement to keep their season alive. The Colts never attempted that at all

Manning missed the whole whole season but there's no way if you watched that team that you could say they weren't tanking. This was a team that went to the playoffs every year with Manning under center and he misses one year and they only win 2 games? I would believe that if they were a 7-9 team but 2-14? That's not because they lost Manning, it's because they saw an opportunity to draft what at time considered a once in a generation QB coming out of college the following year and they knew what they had to do. If they weren't tanking they could have easily traded for a halfway decent competent QB to try to at least be average until Manning returned but they chose not to. It was cleared to see when you watched them play.

Sanders and Sanu aren't all pros. I honestly don't think either one of them would have made an impact here. We have a couple of Sanders's here already. We don't need another. And Sanu isn't a game changer. He'll be good in NE playing with Brady. Howard Simon said on the morning show yesterday that to him Sanu is like a Robert Woods type. I agree with that. A Robert Woods type doesn't really help us much. I'm fine that we didn't go after either

How about Keenan Allen instead?

You haven't been seeing the people on here talking about how they're thinking we can take the division because the Pats schedule gets tougher down the road? They aren't losing any more than 2 games. The division isn't happening for us

Can we stop with this pipe dream of taking the division now? Unless we go 15-1 or 14-2 it is not happening. We're getting 5th place at best

You should have said "Shooter, it's great to hear from you, wanna go to the Sizzler and catch some grub?" And when he says no thanks say "There's a Red Lobster near by. My treat" and then we he says no thanks again say "Shooter, I thought we were gonna be friends"

He was punished for not wanting to cheat

It's needed to get the calls right, plain and simple. There were to many outcomes of games not going the way they should have before they brought replay back. I remember in '98 the year before they brought back replay when Vinny Testaverde was clearly tackled like a full yard short of the endzone against the Seahawks and the ball was never even close to the goal line and they called it a touchdown. Had replay existed there is no way in hell that was ruled a TD. The Seahawks had a shot at the playoffs before that game and that game pretty much sealed their fate because of a horrendous call that couldn't be reviewed. Of course all scoring plays are reviewed now but back then they weren't and I believe that was the turning point to bringing replay back. If it's really clearly a no brainers, they will get the call right majority of the time

Can you not tell by a really good camera angle whether or not a player's knee is down when they fumble? Can you not tell from a really good camera angle that a ball clearly hits the ground when they say a player intercepted it? Sure, some camera angles might suck and you can't really tell but if it's blatant and they have a clear view (non pass interference because they aren't overturning those anyway) it does get overturned quite frequently. Not sure why you would start laughing. It makes no sense

We still need replay to get calls right. Granted some of them will be missed but we still need it. I'd hate to lose a game because of a fumble while the knee was down that couldn't be reviewed. We need replay. One of my biggest pet peeves is when people whine about replay extending games. I'll never be able to understand that. So, let's not take some time to get the call right on the field because you don't want to watch a game you've already spent 3 hours watching for an extra 15 minutes? It's just stupid. Replay is needed. They just need to be more accurate all around.

I love the reds. Only one game a year though

I actually think Vegas's prediction of 6.5 wins for this team was actually kind of ignorant. They didn't look at the bigger picture. They just basically looked at it like "oh, the Bills, 6 wins". I get it based on past experience but it was clear to see with the talent they brought on and the schedule that this was at least a 9 win team. They're gonna lose some money on that and I love it

I just read an article that this is a new college rule just put in place for 2019.

Just because it's been that way forever doesn't mean it shouldn't be eliminated. Ties suck honestly and while the NFL has made it more fair by giving each team at least one possession in OT. They have reduced the OT quarter from 15mins to 10 mins which has actually increased ties quite a bit the last few years. The 10 minute quarter is stupid in my opinion to. That last 5 mins would have no bearing that the other 70 minutes of play had on player safety

Have you watched the new college OT format? And, why would you be ok with ties? If it can be eliminated, I'd say do it

No, there's a brand new format. I knew about the one they implemented in 1996. They just made a new OT format this year

This was just clarified for me. Yes, they do. If both teams are tied after 2 OTs then it goes to a 3rd where each team gets just one play from opponents 2 yard line like a two point conversion. If one team scores on their play then then other team gets one play. If they don't score, the other team wins. I love this idea

I agree with you here. I like the way the NFL does it now where one team each gets a possession but the way this new college rule does it seems like it's more entertaining and better because it eliminates ties completely

Oh ok. This game only made it to a 2nd OT so I wasn't able to see how it works past that but I really loved watching it. It was really interesting

I'm not sure. This game went into a 2nd OT and each team got a possession and both missed field goals in the first OT and then South Carolina made a field goal in the 2nd OT and the Georgia kicker missed his field goal in the 2nd OT so South Carolina ended up winning the game

So, I just watched the South Carolina vs Georgia game and I was not aware that college changed their OT rules. It's been set up almost like the NHL does their shootouts in hockey. The game goes into OT and each team gets one possession at the opponents 25 yard line and has four downs to either get a first down and drive the whole 25 yards for a TD or kick a field goal to try to take the lead. The other team then gets their chance to do the same. If both teams don't score after each of their possessions then it goes into a 2nd OT and the same rules apply. There is a game clock but not a time clock. Each team just gets one possession in each OT until one team finally scores and the doesn't. It's very interesting. I really enjoyed watching it. Would anyone be interested in the NFL implementing the same thing? I hate ties so I personally would love it.

This is just coach speak to me. If the right offer comes along, they will trade him. What's he supposed to say? "You're all right, we're gonna start fielding offers for our all pro WR right now. Everyone, have at it". No, almost all coaches say the same thing. Some players get traded and some don't but I believe it will come down to what other teams are offering

I will admit, I was born a Bon Jovi fan. I was born in 1986 and my Uncle who's also a Bills and big Bon Jovi fan got me on them at the age of 2. I would rock out with him to "Bad Medicine" and then came the Keep the Faith days and then These Days days and I listened to them straight through until 2005 when they made Have a Nice Day and that was it. Their music became trash to me after that. So, I had already gotten to the point of I didn't care about them anymore when rumors spread about him Jon Bon Jovi buying the Bills and moving them to Toronto. It felt kind of odd knowing that I grew up loving this band so much and now the singer of the band was going to move my favorite football team away. I wasn't having that. I took the Bills over Bon Jovi anyday. I grew a hatred for him for a while and wanted nothing to do with him or the band for at least a solid year afterward. Then one day driving home from work I couldn't help it, "I'll Be There For You" came on the radio and I told myself I couldn't do it. It couldn't be done but I gave in. I poured my heart and soul singing that song in my car driving home from work and those fuzzy Bon Jovi memories of childhood came back. All is forgiven. So now, I do listen to them but only the good stuff. The all the way up to 2005 Bon Jovi stuff. Not the John Shanks produced garbage they have made ever since then. One thing Is for sure. That band was so freaking good back in the day, I don't care what anyone says. If anyone tells you Bon Jovi sucks you can say that now they do but not back then. They had some of the best songs ever made and if anyone says otherwise, they're a darn fool. That's it. Carry on. Go Bills