[What a great event]

Unreal, if the Cons ever did something like this, the bitchfest would resonate on this board all day.

If the Cons ever did what? Hold an inauguration?

[What's with the refs? Two huge blown calls]

Wrong. If they ruled the player was standing out of bounds when the ball touched him, then it's an illegal kick out of bounds and the ball should've been placed at the 40. This exact scenario happened in a game earlier this year (i think it was a bills game) and the ball was indeed placed at the 40.

Not true.

 

Since the ball was first touched by the receiving team while the receiving player was inbounds (ticked off his finger tips), the ball was live and any subsequent touching of the ball by a player out of bounds (such as if the ball bounced back up and hit the receiving player in the arm or leg after his foot was out of bounds) would stop the play and the ball should be spotted where it was touched.

 

Thus, the ruling on the field was correct if you believe the ball was touched a second time. I was not convinced of that though and I was extremely dissapointed that the play was unreviewable for some reason (Could've sworn I've seen that situation reviewed during Bills games once or twice...).

[Vanek is on fire...]

Thomas Vanek adds another 2 goals to his season total tonight against the Devils...24 goals in 29 games...the guy is always in the right place...don't want to jinx anything, but maybe that contract he signed last season wasn't so crazy afterall...a Buffalo Sabre leading the NHL in scoring a third or the way into the season is about as rare as Haley's comet...to TV!

I loved his second goal last night. That was a "f*** you" goal if ever I saw one. He was mad at someone and he picked the corner of the net like it was nothing.

[UB v. Ball State]

I saw 2 football wins my entire time at UB ('01 - '04 seasons). The comparison then to now is incredible. Talent like Willy, Roosevelt, and Starks was just a dream.

[UB v. Ball State]

This team was amazing to watch all season. Even when they hit that rough patch midway it was still easy to see they had top flight leadership and it paid off.

 

I'm an '05 grad of UB and witnessed more wins this season than in my entire college career there. Incredibly enjoyable. Very talented. Great coaching. Sweet.

[The unofficial "official" Hey UB.....]

Proud UB Alum ('05) here, and I'm laughing my freakin' ass off.

 

Hey LV, how'd this taste? Hahahahahaha.

 

Buffalo totally outclassed your boys. Perfect.....

[Trent lost the game (4 picks)]

I can't imagine that Evans was wide open all night. Especially with the amount of short passes. Seemed like they planned the passes.

Again, I disagree. These weren't called screen passes or swing passes. There is no play in the playbook for "stand in the pocket for six seconds then dump it off for a two yard gain."

 

A couple of things that scare me about Edwards' regression: 1) How many times we had receivers waiving their arms while wide open to get Edwards' attention. I saw Evans do it repeatedly. I saw Lynch, Royal, Schouman, and Steve Johnson do it as well. That never used to happen with Edwards. 2) A couple of times Edwards didn't even seem to know where is dump off receiver was and hit him late.

 

I've knocked Edwards since the beginning for being unwilling to throw the ball downfield regularly. But even I am shocked by this recent skid. It used to be that while we never got a big play out of the kid, at least he didn't do anything really negative, either. Not anymore. He's getting worse and worse with each game.

[Trent lost the game (4 picks)]

Yes, Trent played horribly in first half. However, the horrible play calling... man it's ridiculous. Can we have a passing play called that is over 20 yards? Maybe, just once, JUST ONCE take a shot down the field. It's no wonder that defenses are playing well against us. We have no deep threat.

Disagree. Lee Evans was open on a consistent basis down field. Especially later in the game. It was like Cleveland gave up on covering him. Did Evans even get a ball thrown in his direction all night?

 

Edwards just had no interest in throwing down field. The only thing that kept him from looking totally incompetent tonight was the play of Lynch, Jackson, and McKelvin. They played out of their minds tonight.

[how bad will the snow be?]

Here's a thought. How about asking somebody who lives in Orchard Park to look out their friggin window and tell us whether there's snow or not.

 

I know this internet weather thing is cool & all, but I'm guessing there's someone who's still left in WNY who can tell us the weather report first hand

Gee, if only someone had thought to make a thread asking how bad the snow would be.

[Defend Trent Now]

Edwards had his share of bad plays but he didn't cost us the game.

Yes he did. Again. This is a quarterback who has very little interest in trying for the big play. We accept that because he's supposed to be great at long methodical drives that end in scores by minimizing the negative plays. This is the second consecutive week where he delivered on the first part of that pact (no big plays) but not on the second (no mistakes).

 

He handed the Jets ten points with his turn overs. He took three off the board for his own team with that interception return. He took two horrible sacks when he had plenty of time to throw, run, or get rid of the ball on consecutive plays to turn a chipshot field goal into a challenging field goal that Lindell ultimately missed. That's a -16 margin that Edwards is partially or fully responsible for.

 

These are mistakes that would be much easier to dismiss if Edwards countered them with big plays. But he so rarely does that. Frankly, he's regressing badly.

[Dolphins Owner Wants to Sell Before Obama Raises CG Taxes]

Mexico, India, China, Dubai - all countries that will do well under President Obama. Lots of US corporations going leave the US.

Dubai is not a country.

[Deeply Concerned for Our Country]

And that's a fair assessment for you to make. Regardless, all it shows to me is that you like to dance around topics by refuting stories as being valid when they were just an attempt to personalize what is generally an impersonal topic.

I'm sorry, what topic is it that I'm supposedly dancing around?

 

Because I'm talking about the disapproval of Bush/Media/Brainwashing and I've think I've done a pretty good job of sticking to it.

[Deeply Concerned for Our Country]

You're trying awfully hard to be offended on a message board. My statement implies what it does, but you missed the point if you think that it was all people who dislike bush are brainwashed. Instead, it was all people who irrationally dislike bush may lead to some negative overall implications on our government.

None of us were on that door step with you that day. I have no idea what they did or did not say to you.

 

But I can say that just because they did not articulate their disapproval of George Bush in a way that satisfied you, without notice, at their front door, it does not mean that their disapproval is irrational and/or driven by the media.

[Deeply Concerned for Our Country]

You're not a mind-reader or a reader either I guess.

 

You realize I was upset because of the bolded word, right?

 

"without really understanding why, they abandoned their reasons and their political alignments"

Why the personal insults? You're trying awfully hard to sound like an intellectual and you discredit that with insults.

 

You honestly don't see how your statement implies that in order to dislike Bush you need to have been brainwashed by the media?

[Deeply Concerned for Our Country]

Why did you take that from what I wrote?

I'm no mind reader but I'm guessing it was this:

 

"What I took from that day was that the street (for whatever reason) had all succumbed to the unfortuanate Bush-bashing that our media presented us. Because of this, without really understanding why, they abandoned their reasons and their political alignments. From this I understood that one, the "American" is extremely hypocritical, and two, once you're brainwashed you can't go back."

[How many "Joe Sixpacks" have 20k to lose?]

Obama wants to increase taxes on the top 5% of earners, cut the taxes of 95% of the country, of which about 40% DON"T EVEN PAY TAXES, and take the money from the top 5% and give it to the 95% FOR NO REASON except that such a concept will get him elected.

 

Not sure why I'm the one who sounds dense.

Nice. Couldn't formulate a response? How is this even remotely related to how many homes John McCain has and whether or not he can relate to the average American as he claims?

[How many "Joe Sixpacks" have 20k to lose?]

You know the biggest difference between libs and everyone else? Libs absolutely can not stand to see someone have more than them.

There's no way you're really as dense as you're pretending to be with this response.

 

The issue people have with the McCain multiple mansion story is not that he has "more" than them. The McCain/Palin ticket has invested a lot of time and effort into trying to produce the perception amongst the so-called "Average American" that not only are they truly "Average Americans" themselves but that they are the only ones who are capable of representing the "Average American" in government because Obama is an elitist.

 

After having this propaganda piece beaten over our heads for months, you have the gall to claim it's jealousy when we scoff at McCain's housing situation?

[Moderator of VP Debate]

Have you or anyone you know or anyone you have quoted read one word of the book? How do you know it is pro-Obama in any remotely unfair way? The book is about the rise of black politicians to positions of power, like Obama, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Deval Patrick, etc. If you do not think this is a good and fair thing for the country, fine. Ifill is not known at all as partisan, or anything but an objective journalist. There aren't many around with that reputation.

The thread starter and the "journalist" are clearly basing their opinion that this book is about Obama based on the book title and tagline, two things the author of the book has no control over. In almost every case, the publishers choose the title of the book. Think it's possible they stuck Obama's name in the title to try to get extra attention because he's running for president? No waaaaaay.

[eball's stat of the week: how statistics lie]

Oh please. Statistics don't lie. Idiots who pull random data out of context (ie King) are the liars and anyone who believes the "statistics" without checking the context are just as stupid.

 

Eball was right on when he checked the context of King's data (the common sense test), but used statistics himself to try to prove that Kings statistics were misleading and that the Bills defense was better than King claims. 253 yards in 53 minutes of meaningful football? Sounds like a stat to me. Are those stats lying, too?

 

Let's cut the "stats are for losers" talk, shall we? People use statistics to lie just like they use language. Let's all stop talking to one another. Statistics have been crucial to the develop of pretty much everything we touch and use and the sport football is pretty simple compared to that. Lazy journalism is for losers, not statistics.

[Presidential Debate]

To me, it seemed as though McCains victory was in that he didn't do as poorly as some suspected, and Obama didn't score the deciisive victory many assumed he would.

Not sure what you're basing those expectations on. Most of what I heard leading up to this debate was that McCain better decisively win this debate as foreign policy is supposed to be his strong suite.

[Was the reffing as bad as I thought......]

Dean, I was at the game play happen right in front of me. Evans pushed off. Replay didnt cleary show the entire play with him. Evans had his hand on the defender and proceeded to extend his arm to create seperation. As soon as he did it I said thats offensive pass interference and that was before the ref threw the flag.

Sorry, but you being at the game means your opinion should count less, not more. I'll take the opinion of the guy who saw it in slow motion in high definition from three angles every time. Having been that guy, I can say with absolute certainty that the PI call was horrible. Evans basically swatted the DBs hands away from his face. Very little contact, no push at all. BAD CALL.

[Where are the idiots now]

what was the point of this? On top of being senseless - you needed to bump this 8 minutes later?

 

So, Josh Reed had a good game today and that means he played well 2 years ago.

 

Whatever... argue with yourself.

There we people this preseason saying Reed couldn't make the roster of most other NFL teams, let alone start....

[OT- Does anyone else feel bad for Ed Hochuli?]

Agreed.

 

The NFL is far more to blame by still restricting replay in this manner. The replay restrictions are slowly being done away with, but only after some team or official gets burned by them, one by one. The restrictions were understandable when replay was first instituted and not fully understood. We've had replay for, what, a decade now? I think the rules committee can adequately predict the reaction when the restriction are removed now....

[Ed Hochuli just hosed the Chargers. Bad.]

Didn't they change the rule so that even if the whistle blew, if on replay it was clear who was going to recover the fumble, they could still over turn the play? I swear they did.

 

Either way, this call was inexcusable. The ball went backwards. There was no possible way it was an incomplete pass whether Cutler's arm was going forward or not. Horrible.

[Alot of success running the ball against SEA...]

Didn't see Evans block particularly well but both Royal and Reed were blowing up LBs.

Evans absolutely mauled his guy on Lynch's TD run. Ran him right out of bounds.