CosmicBills

And yet, deep down you know he did it. Everyone does. No one runs when they're innocent -- not in the fashion that he did. The rest was all fancy legal tricks and mumbo jumbo. It had nothing to do with race. It was about fame. If OJ wasn't famous, he'd be doing life. To paraphrase Chris Rock: "If that was Jerry Seinfeld and the cop who found the glove just happened to be in the nation of Islam, he'd be home today eating his cereal." Legally did the jury do what's correct? Maybe. But there's no way any rational human being can look at all the evidence, actual and circumstantial, and think anything other than he murdered those two people.

:lol:

When she referenced the twilight's last reaming, she was speaking of Big Ben's night life this past off season ...

You're probably right of course, and like I said earlier, I'm not a draft expert by any means, but if Quinn puts up the kind of numbers at the combine he's expected to, he will leap frog right up into the mix in the top five.

I know he has a lot of question marks sine he didn't see the field last year, but the more I look into Quinn, the higher he moves on my wish list. I'd take him over Miller. But it's still early. I don't know much about the prospects over all.

It's gonna rock.

Crazy.

Wow ... I've never seen someone pwn themselves so blindly before. I really hope you're kept in a very padded room when you're not on the internet. Remember to breathe. Calm down. It's just the internet. It's okay to be proven wrong. Over and over and over and over and over again. John, you're my hero!!!

Both defenses clearly were the difference in tonight's Super Bowl. Another great piece of evidence you can use to support your ridiculous thread title.

It breaks my heart to think Rodgers could have been a Bill had they not taken JP.

Tackles are the most useless stat when determining a players worth. Pox had 52 more tackles because the bills d was on the field more than the jets who produced far more three and outs. Also I'm sure if you looked at each tackle you'd find a large percentage of Pozs tackles were 8 yards downfield. Poz is an average (at best) LB.

Yup ... It took over a decade to recover. Also those are record numbers for TNT not network records. The point is the NBA was one of the most popular sports in America pre 98 strike. They thought they could withstand a work stoppage. They were wrong. The NFL is vastly more popular now than the NBA was then but it would be pure folly to believe they're immune to the backlash that other leagues have suffered once greed got I. The way of games being played.

5%Plenty. Go take a look at television ratings for the NBA for the past decade. The numbers dropped over 34% for the playoffs post 1998. Almost a 50% drop in regular season ratings.

I don't think there's much of a chance that there'll be a season at all in '11. The NFL thinks it's untouchable. But so did Baseball. And the NBA. People forget how popular the NBA was before their last strike. Even with the star power found in today's NBA, it's half as popular as it was before the strike. MLB managed to recover, but it took time and some would say it's not ever going to be what it once was. The NFL would be foolish to think they can't fall victims to similar fates. A prolonged lockout will have an impact on the league. Bigger than most realize. The only hope for football in '11 is if both sides come to their senses and realize that they are, in fact, not untouchable. This league is the golden goose right now. But a canceled '11 season could be the axe.

This. And thank you to JW for continuing to enlighten us all about the media's view of the situation (as well as your own informed views). Seriously, it helps because this whole issue is a giant clusterf&*k and it's so easy to get confused by all the hype on both sides. End of the day, the owners are the ones deciding NOT to let the players play because they want a new deal. That's their right to do as owners. But saying this is going to be anything but a lockout is laughable.

To be fair, I don't think anyone at OBD thought Spiller was going to be a project. And if they did, and took him anyway, then there's really no hope for this current regime. RBs have the shortest learning curve of all NFL positions. The transition is fairly easy and quick for RBs ... But this isn't about RBs -- it's about QBs. So far the results are interesting! Keep 'em coming.

But it's fair to say that each of those QBs came from pro style offenses (at least I think?) whereas Gabbert and Newton -- like Rodgers -- did not. And since it is the most complicated position on the field to learn, wouldn't you at least consider giving them more time than another position taken that high? (Again, not taking sides here, just digging a bit deeper into your answers)

The purpose of this thread is not to debate whether or not the Bills SHOULD take a QB with the third pick in the draft -- that has already been done to death. It's also premature to have that debate until all the pro days and combine numbers results come in. However, I'm curious as to the patience level of the fans here in the event a QB is taken that high. Let's, for the sake of this discussion, assume the Bills take either Gabbert or Newton at 3. Those two seem to be the most likely candidates at that spot if the Bills do decide to take a signal caller. How long would you as a fan, regardless of whether or not you agree with the decision, be willing to give either QB before demanding they see the field?

Let me ask you both a question, and I don't mean to slant this any one way ... (maybe I should make a poll question about it). But since you're both fans of Newton and want the Bills to take him (which I'm not for or against currently, I'm still gathering info) -- would you be willing to accept the Bills taking Newton knowing he will not see the field much (if at all) in '11 and possibly '12? I ask because I'm curious as to how soon the Newton fans would expect to see him on the field. I wouldn't mind taking Newton with the assumption that he'd sit and learn behind Fitz for 2 seasons or so ... but would you?

Peterson or Green are the picks based on the current regime's track record....

Yet, the players on the field are what makes it great. Their skill. Their lives are on the line. Their abilities. This sounds an awful like the people who supported the studios during the last writer's strike (sorry, reaching for what I know). Yes, the studios make the movies, but the writers create the content. The studios can exist without the writers, their content will just suffer. Same with the NFL. I guess you could sit there and say "The owners make the league" but do you REALLY want to see an NFL with scab players who aren't as talented on the field? Wake up.

It took me a bit to understand his posts as well, but I think you're right. He is on the owners' side so much so that he sees this as a strike and not what it really is, a lock out.

They absolutely want games to continue. But on THEIR terms. Not the players.

But that's double speak. The players can't play until there is a CBA. The players, if given the option, would continue to play under the current CBA. The owners do not want that. The players won't be able to show up and play because the owners are going to lock them out of the team facilities until a new CBA is in place ... Don't get it twisted. The players want to keep playing. The owners don't. It's a lockout. Not a strike. No matter how the owners spin it, that's what's occurring.

I still don't understand why people are saying the players are going to be the ones calling for a work stoppage. That just isn't the case. The owners are locking them out. The owners are the ones that want the change -- the players just want it to remain the same. It doesn't help that the networks are in bed with the NFL (of course) and refuse to air NFLPA ads like this one out of fear of angering the Owners.