CosmicBills

To be fair, the Bills have always had an EXCELLENT turnout at their voluntary OTAs. Even with Juaron, Mularkey and Williams. That's not new at all. What also isn't new is the utter lack of talent on the roster in key positions. This team has ALWAYS had heart. They always play hard. But they haven't always had the talent. That's been the problem. But back on topic ... I remember that the pre-draft analysis of Maybin was that he was going to be a great OLB in a 3-4 scheme and was a huge risk in a 4-3? Maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if he makes a big step forward this season in a position that's better suited to his talent. But I honestly don't know much about 3-4 defenses other than what I saw from the team in the 90s...

Spot on. Knight and Day and Inception will be the big winners of the summer -- excluding Pixar's magic of course. Toy Story 3 will be huge, but KaD and Inception will be monster hits as well. What we are seeing this summer season is the last residual effects of the WGA strike. Couple that with the economic fallout, studios had less material to pull from, rushed some projects (ie SALT) into production, and of course there's a giant hole where Harry Potter was supposed to be ... But the future looks bright. A lot of really promising projects coming down the pipe that have me excited. Though I guess it's too early to tell how they're going to turn out.

Last season the Bills had the worst LB corps in the league. Poz has moments, but overall is vastly overrated by most people on this board who love the kid's story and roots. Still, he's not a bad LB by anymeans. Just not a great LB. But he's young. The rest of the LBs, Mitchell aside, were down right laughable. Even in the Tampa 2 scheme where smaller, quick LBs are supposed to excell, our LB corps looked like a JV team. Hell, some of them wouldn't even make the JV team. Now, I never played in a 3-4 defense so I don't know much about techniques. But it seems to me that in the 3-4 scheme our LBs will be forced to take on more Guards and Tackles than they would do when they have 4 DL in front of them to protect 'em. That is ... alarming. Obviously our DE's who are moving to OLB will be able to handle that (in theory). But the rest of our undersized LBs? Not so much. I know that it is going to take time to transition into the new schemes on both sides of the ball. And that it's impossible to fix all the massive, gaping holes on this team in one off season. But the failure to seriously address the LB position in this past off season doesn't bode well for this coming season.

How many games do you need to see Fitz play before you can judge him? There's more than enough film on both he and Trent to make that sort of prediction. It isn't rocket science. Fitz is athletic and can make plays with his feet. He's also smart and seems like a swell guy. But he does not have the tools to be a winning QB in this league. He showed it in Cincy. He showed it in Buffalo last year. Trent had flashes of brilliance. But also has a knack for getting injured. If he can't stay healthy and on the field, he can't lead this team to a championship. That's the big question mark hanging over Trent's head (for me at least). I believe he has the tools to win as far as football IQ, accuracy and yes, even arm strength -- but I know I'm in the minority on that one. Brohm and Brown are total unknowns. They haven't played enough downs for anyone, outside of the coaches, to make a real solid prediction on how they'll fit into the team. But, as I said, evaluating Fitz or Trent doesn't take psychic ability. They've had enough time to make a fairly accurate prediction on how they'll fare.

That's crazy talk. Fitz is the worst QB on the roster. He's a servicable backup, nothing more. He's terribly inaccurate, has a weak arm and just doesn't have the ability to lead a team to a W week in and week out. If the Bills don't feel comfortable trying to put Brown on the PS, it wouldn't shock me at all to see Fitz cut in camp. He'll get cut before Brohm (unless Brohm is a total disaster in pre-season). Trent is the starter. Lock it up. He just needs to prove he can stay healthy for a full 16 games. But I'm not holding my breath.

I just read an interview with Kiefer (I think in EW or Variety) where he said that the current script (by Billy Ray, who wrote Shattered Glass, Breach, Flightplan amongst others) is a 2 hour representation of a 24 hour day. So, it sounds like it's going to be a normal movie.

Apparently it's gone out wider than I ever intended. And it's being misconstrued as being from the writers of the show (on other sites I guess). Which I'm not. I just wrote it up for our little community here of Bills fans and forgot that we're actually a part of a way bigger internet community. I don't want people reading it and assumming it's THE answer or from the mouths of the show. It's just my take on it. Didn't want people to get the wrong idea. Did not mean to cause a firestorm at all ... my apologies.

No no, I'm not a writer on LOST, never written a single word for the show. I was about as signifigant as a stapler. The real people who deserve all the credit are Damon, Carlton, Eddie, Adam, Liz, the great staff, cast and crew. I worked in a lot of different capacities for the company and the show but never, ever, as a writer

Wow. That's how they go out? Look, I am a HUGE fan of 24. For the first few seasons I put it right up there with LOST as far as quality. But somewhere (Season 6? 5?) it totally lost its way (no pun intended). This last season has been hilariously awful. If it wasn't for the great performance that Keifer puts in, the show would have been damn near unwatchable. Then they get canceled. With about 8 episodes left to shoot. I thought they got the shaft and at least deserved to know one full year in advance so they could PROPERLY send off the show in style. But still, they had time to do a proper goodbye. And they tried like hell to set one one up -- abandoning their main plot in the whole season to go with an even more insane one just to be like, "fu*k it, we're canceled, so let's really just let Jack loose...". And I was down with that. I was loving the past few episodes because of how unbelievably lazy the show had become ... So I had mediocre hopes going into the finale. I will admit to that. But part of me really wanted a great ending that this franchise truly deserves. Above all else, the writers and creators owed us that much. Even if it was just a glimmer of its former glory. But damn was that not one of the worst, most ludicrious in terms of logic/emotion/story finale ever? Holy schnikes! This was the most lazy, hackjob finale I've ever seen. Even worse than The X-Files. And that's saying something. At least the X-Files had Chris Carter himself writing the finale and at least trying to make it compelling. But 24 doesn't even give us Sunrow and Gordon? They give us two staff writers for the first half of the finale and Gordon alone for the final hour. Maybe I'm being unfair too because it's airing after LOST's finale which showed that a show CAN be good for 6 seasons and still deliver an amazing, fulfilling conclusion. It's hard to compete with that. But damn, this was once a great show it's sad for it to go out on such a god awful note. /rant ...

It's a philosophical difference. Before I get into what I mean by that, let me say up front that even though I think the Spiller pick was the wrong pick, there's nothing to be done about it now. And, I will be rooting my ass off him to be everything he's hyped to be and more. I'm not not one of those fans who care more about being right than having their team win -- as (I think) you know. Still ... here's why this pick, to me, is such a waste. It comes down to the fact that I believe the NFL has changed drastically over the past 10 years. Back in the 70s, 80s and 90s (and before), teams relied upon 1 RB to carry the load. And while QBs have always been important, it was rare to find a GREAT team (ie: Super Bowl winner) who didn't have a super star RB or a tremendously talented rushing attack leading the way. It was a grind it out, control the clock type of game where DBs were allowed to maul WRs, passing schemes were (by in large) conservative. Scores were low (average were around 20 - 25 per game). The NFL, in an effort to goose the sport, changed the rules (or started enforcing the rules depending on who you ask) for DBs and opened up the passing attack. Scoring went way up as teams started using spread attacks with 4 or 5 WRs on the field at a time. QBs took over the sport even more so and where teams used to run to set up the pass they are now passing to set up the run. The league changed. Almost over night. It's now, 100% a passing league where the team with the best passing attack and the best pass defense wins over the team with the best rushing attack. GMs know this. They began to adjust HOW they built their teams in response to this as can clearly be seen in the most successful franchises over the past decade. And I don't mean just by drafting more CBs, WRs and QBs -- but by devaluing RBs. Why? Because RBs had priced themselves out of relevance. Teams couldn't afford to tie up a large percentage of their cap space on super star RBs when more money was needed for the OL, WRs, DBs, and QBs. So they adjusted. They discovered that RB is one of the easiest positions to transition from the college game to the NFL. The learning curve is short. That means that teams could take the Bronco's model and take any RB and turn him into a productive threat. So, they started going with tandum backfields. RB by committee. The success was evident on the field. Teams found that they could get the SAME production, if not more, by using two RBs found late in the draft or on the FA market. Look at the stats from the league's top offenses last year (NFL.com has a great stat sorting tool you can use -- I dug up all these stats before and don't feel like doing it again right now so I'll paraphrase) and you'll find that the top 5 offensive teams didn't have a marquee RB. They had talented backs, but none that you'd consider a superstar. Look at the top RUSHING teams and you'll see much of the same thing -- only the top rushing teams by in large weren't playoff teams. Rather they were on the outside looking in. Specific examples: New Orleans used 4 RBs, none of them marquee (I'm sorry, Bush doesn't count as marquee because he's been a tremendous disappointment based on where he was drafted and the hype surrounding him), Indy got rid of James for a RB by committee approach and while Adai and Brown are good neither are super stars (though Brown was a first round pick -- more on that later), The Pats haven't had a super star RB ... ever, The Giants, Steelers, all used committees ... the list goes on. These teams are not defined by their running backs or even their running game even though they have good ones. They are all defined by their passing attacks and defense. That's how you get a winner in this new NFL. Take a look at the example in Tennessee. Tennessee went 15-1 with their RB by committee approach using White and Johnson. Then, they abandoned that in favor of using JUST Johnson and they wound up going 8-8 with no playoffs. Were there other factors? Sure. But people here want to say Spiller is the next Johnson -- yet Johnson just proved that he can't do it by himself in Tennessee. There's just no point in using high draft picks on RBs unless your team is one player away from being a super bowl contender. RBs lifespans are the shortest in the league (they all seem to hit the wall at 30), and since you can find equal production from 2 lesser/cheaper players later in the draft or FA there's no logic in using a high pick to take one early. The best, most successful teams in the leauge the past decade know this and have acted accordingly. Yet the Bills have not. They have used not 1, not 2, but THREE first round picks in the past 6 years on RBs. Think about that. THREE first round picks on a position where, their most productive player during that stretch was found in NFL Europe. I don't think it's at all a coincidence that in those 6 years these Bills teams have been at the bottom of the barrell in the AFC East and the NFL in general. The team has been mishandled for over a decade. Built, and torn down. Rebuilt and torn down again. Only every time they seem to start with the same principle: RB is the key. And I'm sorry. It's not. Maybe in 1985. But not in 2010. RB is, perhaps, the least important position on the field. The old timers will be screaming: "We play in Buffalo! You can't win in the cold and snow of December and January without a grinding running game". That is the WORST, and most incorrect excuse I hear on here. First, when's the last time the Bills have been in a playoff game in the snow? Second, NE, Pittsburgh, the Giants all made it just fine using RB by committee in the winter. What Spiller brings to the table is a playmaker who "can score anytime he touches the ball". Sure. That's true if he lives up to the hype. He will bust a few long ones this year. If he's REAL good he'll take one to the house a game (on a long run I mean). Maybe 1 every other game -- even that would be great. But what would you rather have? An OFFENSE who can score every time it's on the field -- which requires a QB, WRs, and OL. Or a player who can break long runs off once or twice a game? Therein lies my point. The Bills already have enough talent at RB to win in this modern NFL. What they don't have is the pieces for the rest of the puzzle. People all say "Fred is 30, Marshawn is a thug" ... and I'd argue even if that's true, the answer is NOT taking yet ANOTHER first round RB, but rather building a RB by committee through the later rounds in the draft and free agency. That's how you build a winning team. The Bills could have traded back. With such a deep draft are you willing to say that NONE of the players taken after the number 9 pick at either: OT, OG, DL, LB, WR, QB will become probowl/franchise type players? But the Bills didn't even consider trading back because Spiller was their guy all along. He's who they wanted. And that to me shows that they just don't understand that the game has changed. They're stuck in the past. And we as fans are going to be the ones who pay for that.

They reached when they took a RB in the first round. For a team with a half a dozen glaring holes, they chose to add a "playmaker" (who will play less than 60% of the offensive snaps) to the team's deepest position. A position where they already had not one, but TWO, 1,000 yard rushers. Also, RB is a position the Bills have time and time again wasted first round draft picks on over the past (playoff-less) decade. From Smith, to Henry (high 2nd), to Willis, to Lynch less than 3 years ago. In my opinion it was a terrible, terrible waste of a pick for a team who frankly can't afford to waste any more draft picks.

Other than the two (glaring) research errors about positions, I don't see how any objective fan can find fault in what he said in this article. The Bills missed on getting a big name coach. They missed on getting an experienced GM. They missed on getting OL help in FA or the draft. They missed on getting QB help. They missed on getting WR help. They're switching defensive philosophies and having to rely on untested, second round (and lower) rookies to man the most crucial spots on that new defense ... All the while the rest of the AFC East got a whole lot tougher. As it stands right now, looking at all the rosters in the league (and keep in mind it will change as camps go along), the Bills have the worst Offensive Line in the leauge (they might get a bump up if Wood can indeed come back in time for camp). They have absolutely the worst LB corps in the league (they had it last year too -- before they switched to 3-4). They have the league's most unsettled QB position (but not the worst). Last year they had one of the worst pass rushes in the league -- they didn't improve this year in terms of talent, but the hope is that the change in scheme will bump up the pressure (and it can't do any worse than last year to be fair). And they have, outside of Jacksonville, maybe the worst WR corps in the league as far as NFL proven WRs. That's the doom and gloom rationale. And yet it's also the facts of the current situation. What the doom and gloomers (and Clayton) discount though is the ability for players to finally perform up to their expectations (Hardy, Trent/Brohm, Bell, Troup, Maybin). If the Bills are going to improve on their record of last year they're going to need all of those guys to take a massive step forward in their development. Which, is NOT out of the realm of possibility. Still, the Bills are rolling the dice and leaving themselves no outs. Because if they don't take that step forward, this team will be everything the doom and gloomers are saying ... and worse. But, to be fair, this is a rebuilding year. The painful thing is that the whole rebuilding process (probably 2 years, maybe 3 -- time which can be shorter or longer depending on how and when they finally address the QB situation) is going to be seriously delayed by the lockout in '11. That's what kills me. If this year's team tanks, then they have to sit out for a whole year ... meaning they don't get to develop. Our good players lose a year off their careers. And we start '12 in the same hole -- if not bigger. But that's just the nature of the lockout I guess.

All this is true to a point. I'm a huge Russell fan. But you have to remember, WE aren't seeing everything the other contestants are during the game. The way the show is edited has a lot to do with how we see it. But they're out there, every day, without a break from him. Because he's so popular (and by far the most interesting of the contestants) he was given a GREAT edit. To make him look even better. This was especially true in the final Tribal Council. You could tell a TON was edited out -- and I think most of it was either Russell talking back OR the Jury totally laying into him. You could tell by the awkard segue with Coach (about being humble ... when the last we saw Russell had just apologized) and also with JT and Jerri who were fans and then suddenly switched during the tribal when Russell hardly said a word. Plus, the way Jeff was going after him at the reunion was telling too. And he KNEW he wasn't getting any votes as they were walking up. Again, so much of the show is left on the cutting room floor. I'm not saying he isn't good. He is. But we don't get to see how poor his social game really was.

Doh!

Awesome. So our 9th round overall pick, the third first round RB we've taken in the past six years, won't even get 50% of the snaps? But he's fast. So it's okay.

This is a little harsh, no? Think about what Brohm had to deal with last year. He went from one system to a new system with only a quarter of the season remaining. He went to a team where the QB coach was also the OC and thus had no time to spend with Brohm to help ease him into the new system. As the third QB Brohm got limited reps in practice with the scout team -- and when he did get a chance to start it was with less than a week's notice, with an awful O-Line, a limited game plan and a team who's moral was in the crapper. What did you expect him to do? The fact he didn't **** his pants in the Atlanta game is a huge plus. In fact, there were moments in that game where he looked good. And there were moments where he looked awful too. He's a young QB who hasn't been properly developed. He was stuck behind a probowl QB in GB and then dumped into a team in transition last year. And say what you want about those mini-camp videos, all reports coming out of the camp were that Brohm did better than expected. The kid has talent. Watch his college tapes and you'll see that. No one knows how that will translate to the NFL though. But they have to give him a full year in this new system, with real coaches, before throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Which is why you can't keep both Trent AND Fitz. If you do, you're dooming Brohm to 3rd string (unless he beats them both out for the starting job which I'm not holding my breath about). When your team is rebuilding, which this team clearly is, it's not about wins and loses as much as it is getting your young stars (Spiller, Wood, Levitre, Leodis, Bryd etc) experience and finding out which of your young players is a legit NFL passer or just a career clipboard carrier.

First ... we need to catch up ASAP -- I'm still having all sorts of computer/email issues ... Second, and more to your point, I hear what you're saying about Fitz being a good backup. And I have no problem with them keeping Fitz over Trent. But keeping both Trent and Fitz is crazy to me. Brohm (and I'd say Trent) have way more upside than Fitz. I, admitedly know nothing about Brown. If this team is trying to win (which they are) then it would make more sense to me to let Trent/Fitz/Brohm battle it out for the starting job -- and if Trent wins, keep Brohm at 2 so he gets more snaps and reps in practice ... and game experience since Trent is a walking crystal ball. What do they gain from having Fitz as the number 2 in the big picture? 1 more win? And that's assuming that Brohm is an utter failure at QB --which may well turn out to be the case. Fitz to me was the worst starting QB in the league last year. By a mile. Keeping him as a backup (or Trent) when this team is so young and so far away from contending in the AFC East let alone the AFC is just accepting mediocrity for mediocrity's sake.

No, no, no. My apologies. I'm not implying that the Bills are going to try to lose. They're not. But they also have to be realistic. As do we fans. You can't win the NFL without a legit franchise QB. And right now, they don't know if one is on the roster. Trent could be. Brohm could be. Brown could be. Fitz ... can't be. He's shown time and time again why he ISN'T the franchise QB. I understand some could say the same about Trent which is why I'm saying they can't keep both of them. They have to pick which one of those two gives them the best chance to win (I personally think it's Trent). Then cut the other one so that they can find out what they have in Brohm and Brown. And if that results in a losing season, it's worth it IF they get a definitive answer about whether or not they have a legit franchise QB on the roster. But if they go out and win 5 games with Trent and Fitz getting all the snaps -- or worse, win 7 or 8 games and miss the playoffs -- then they'll again have no clue what they have on the roster and be left once again spinning their wheels. The goal is to win the super bowl. Not to win 8 games. You can't win the super bowl in the modern NFL without a legit, franchise QB.

I guess that's the difference how we're approaching this. For me, this team is a 5 win team. 7 if they get all the breaks. So the bottom dropping out means what? They only win 2 games? I'm fine with that if it nets them a franchise QB in the draft. But if they win 2 games and we only get to see Fitz and Edwards play in those 16 games ... then Brohm and Brown are still unknowns and we won't know what we have at QB. However, if Fitz (or Trent) are cut and we get to see Brown/Brohm play and they show promise -- we can spend that high pick on another position. For me, this year is all about finding out if we have a franchise QB on the roster. And, in my opinion, Fitz has proven beyond all doubts that he is NOT that guy. He's terrible. So there's no point in keeping him on the roster even if it means 2 more wins because those 2 more wins won't be the difference between playoffs or not. They'll be the difference between picking in the top 5 or the top 15.

Amen!

Hahaha! I don't mind at all! Finally made it in Gringo's sig line.

I agree with you that they could very well stash Brown on the PS and get away with it. However, I think it's the wrong move. Think about the big picture -- and again, I'm giving the front office more faith than maybe I should after this lackluster off season -- they need to know if one of their QBs on the roster is a franchise guy. That's really what this season will be about. They aren't going to compete for a playoff spot. They know they have weaknesses on the OL and that there will be growing pains as the defense learns a new scheme. However, they don't know if any of the QBs are "the guy". There is more than enough film on Fitz for them to decide. If they go into the season with Trent as the number 1 and Fitz as the number 2 (or visa versa) then Brohm will be the third QB and won't get to play. Thus, they won't know anything more about his abilities because a 3rd string QB doesn't get many reps in practice. They HAVE to clear out one of their veteran QBs just to make room for Brohm and Brown -- to see if they need to go QB early next year in the draft or not. That's why it makes ZERO sense to keep both Fitz and Trent. If they do keep both QBs it will be another sign that this front office doesn't have a clue. Now, if this team were legit playoff contenders, then I'd be fine with them keeping a veteran backup. But since they aren't, they need to create the best opportunity to let their young QBs both gain experience AND prove whether or not they've got the goods. Personally I want Trent over Fitz. But it doesn't really matter. So long as Brohm is the number 2 (or Brown).

Theyre's no way they carry both Fitz and Edwards past the pre-season. Fitz is god awful. As bad as Trent was last year, Fitz was worse. He has no arm, makes horrible decisions -- but he can take a hit. Trent has a better arm, makes better decisions -- but is made of glass. Brohm isn't going anywhere this year (his upside is too much to ignore). Neither is Brown. That means one of the two vets is going to be on the outs. My bet is that it'll be Fitz.

1. Actually it's not a pathetic stance. Both are illegal narcotics. One relaxes you, the other allows you to workout longer and harder. Neither harm anyone but the user. 2. "Some" studies show that it has no such effect. Which is the point. Drinking takes years off your life. So does smoking. So does eating McDonalds. Point is, for every study you find that says steroids are bad, you can find just as many that say they're good for you. HGH is way different than anabolic steroids in terms of it's long term effects on the body. And used properly, can actually be quite beneficial to your overall health and well being. If this is really what makes you upset about PEDs then you should be way more concerned about boycotting the fast food and junk we shovel into our mouths every day because that's FAR worse for you. 3. You feel sorry for me if I take personal responsibility for teaching my kids what's right or wrong rather than let them learn it from an NFL player? Might need to rethink that critique. If you really cared about what values were being taught to your kids then you wouldn't watch the NFL at all considering how many players are arrested/cited each season for domestic abuse, DWIs, illegal fire arms etc etc. All of which are far more devestating than someone using PEDs. But keep standing on that soap box. Point is, steroids in baseball is bad and criminal because of the history of the game and attachment to numbers. It cheapens the sport itself because of this. However, if the numbers didn't exist (in fairytale world ... like the one you're living in let's say), then would people complain about a sport where people are hitting the ball farther, fielding better and running faster? Nope. If you think that's wrong, look at how excited the whole country got when Sammy and Mark were hitting long balls every other at bat. America is obsessed with things being bigger, faster, louder and more violent. Especially when it's their entertainment. However, since the numbers are cherished in baseball steroids threaten to destroy that legacy and THAT is worth getting upset over. That is worth protecting. But in football those attachments don't exist. The vast majority of fans only care about winning championships and the violence of the sport. Meaning that whether or not a player uses PEDs really has no effect on the history of the game, nor the perception of the team he plays for. Does it come down on the individual? Sure. But that's his fault for being stupid enough to get caught. There are countless designer drugs out there that don't show up on the NFL tests. Players know this and adopt their methods accordingly. Does this mean every NFL player uses? No. Of course not. But I think you'd be shocked to find out how many actually do. Don't believe me? Pop in a tape of Super Bowl 25. Look at the size of the linemen. Then look at a tape from a super bowl this decade. In Super Bowl 25, despite both teams using 3-4 schemes with run-stuffing NTs -- neither had a NT that was over 300 pounds. Hell, even on the offensive line each team had one 300 pounder (House and Jumbo). 300 pounders were rare ... now? Not so much. Have we as human beings evolved that much in 20 years? Doubtful. Have training methods improved. Certainly. Has the presence of PEDs increased? Absolutely. The eyes don't lie. Does this mean that the NFL should allow or legalize the use of PEDs? No. But they will continue to turn a blind eye to it as they have for decades because the use of PEDs has, in part, led to a better product on the field. Which, in turn, has led to more money for them. If a player is stupid enough to get caught then it's his own fault -- especially because there are designer drugs that are undetectible to NFL testing policies. But to claim that it cheapens the game or sport is just living in denial because that ship sailed a long, long time ago. And it ain't coming back. It's a dirty league. It always has been a dirty league and will continue to be so regardless of the fake, self-righteous indignation you're expressing on a message board. So your choices are simple. Either accept it and continue to watch the sport you love. Or stop watching football.

Football is not baseball and never will be. The big difference is baseball is a game about numbers and statistics almost more than it is about championships. One of the amazing things about baseball (for its fans that is) is that these numbers are sacred. The history of the game is so long and so cherished that the numbers are the only things that allow people to compare one generation of players to the next. Steroids threaten that history. That's why it's a huge deal in baseball. But football has no attachment to numbers and records. All fans really care about, and players for that matter, are the Wins and Losses. How many die-hard football fans know, not only WHO holds the record for the most Rushing yards in a season/career, but how many yards exactly the record is? 75%? 80%? How many die-hard baseball fans know to the decimal point the career batting averages, HRs, RBI, SB, etc etc of the great players? I'd say 99%. It's just a different world. That's why baseball cares so much -- and why their total dropping of the steroid ball in the last two decades (or longer depending on who you talk to) is such an absolute crime. And ... now to my controversial point ... But Football has no ties to its history outside of championships and wins and losses. Sure, it was a big deal when Brady beat Marino's record. But it was way bigger news that the Patriots actually lost that super bowl. By in large, fans don't care about records in the NFL. They care about winning. And, more importantly, they care about the violence that the sport brings to their living rooms every sunday. The violence of the sport adds to it's appeal and to its beauty. People love the big hit. People love the deep pass. The breakaway runs. They don't care what the records are doing. They just care that their team wins. Steroids in the NFL to me do not tarnish the game. I wouldn't care if it came out Kelly was on the juice (okay, that sounded way dirtier than I intended). I wouldn't care if Brady were on it. Why? Because I tend to believe more people in the NFL are on PEDs than aren't. And frankly, I don't care so long as it leads to a better product on the field. And I think honestly, most of you would agree with me. You just won't admit it. Oh I know, I know. I can hear you all now: "Steroids are illegal not only in the sport but under federal law!" -- Yes, I know steroids are illegal. So is weed. I don't care if a player (or person for that matter) smokes. "Steroids are a health risk! They cause cancer, they kill you!" -- Yes, steroids are a health risk. But so too is playing in the NFL. Also, I can show you as many studies that show responsible use of the newer drugs aren't nearly as dangerous as the crap we shovel into our mouths every day from take out joints and fast food places. "What about the kids! The kids! Think of the poor kids!" -- Yes, I know it's a bad message to send our kids. But if you're relying on NFL players to set an example for your kids rather than doing it yourself, there are far bigger worries in your life than whether or not Cushing won the vote. Again, for me the NFL is a dirty league. It always has been and probably always will be. It just doesn't matter so long as the product on the field is good. However in a sport like baseball where it's about history -- that's a different conversation. And finally ... who cares about the damn ROY award? Does anyone even know who won it last year? Or three years ago? It's a meaningless award in the NFL. No one cares. So I don't get all the panic being shown on this crazy board.