CosmicBills

Explain to me where the players have the power in this current labor dispute. The only power they have is to strike. The Owners won't let that happen. They're going to lock them out because they know they can financially withstand a prolonged labor dispute. The players cannot. All the players want to keep things the same. They aren't asking for more. But the owners want the players to take an 18% paycut despite the fact the league is making money hands over fist. Of course, the players can't prove that because the owners refuse to turn over the books. The owners will get the TV money in 2011 whether or not there are games played which amounts to over 4 BILLION dollars. Sure, the network money will have to be paid back (with interest) once games resume. But the DirecTV money they get to keep scott free -- and that's estimated to be worth over 1 billion dollars alone. More than enough to weather the storm for even the poorest (ha!) of the owners. This was posted a few weeks ago but it's the best summation of the situation out there: Forbes

His stance is Defense wins. Period. That just shows you weren't paying attention to the game. Ben's rating was awful. But he was the best player on the field when it counted (on 3rd downs).

It's easy to defend a position when it keeps changing. Give me one example of how he successfully defended his original (not his multitude of variations found after he started back pedaling) position that all you need to win is a great defense. I'll wait.

Disagree. The owners have already said they're going to lock the players out. It'll happen on March 3rd. The only question is how long it'll last.

Please, for the love of all that's holy, stop. It's not fun anymore. It's like picking on a blind kid.

Absolutely true. And it probably will. But the NFLPA has virtually no leverage. The only leverage they ever really have is the threat of a work stoppage -- but the Owners want to lock the players out. Taking the biggest threat away from the players. It's going to be like watching the school bully beat the snot out of a third grader ... but the only way for that third grader to make sure he doesn't get picked on again is to fight back. Meaning the players goal will be to drag this out, make it as costly as they can afford to for the owners. If they cave on March 3rd, they'll set a dangerous precedent that will cost them more in the long run.

Yup. And that's what's going to happen. The owners have all the cards here. But if the NFLPA caves, it'd be doing a huge disservice to it's members. Essentially the Owners are asking their employees to take an 18% paycut despite the NFL earning record making revenues. But since the owners won't turn over their books, the NFLPA can't prove those revenues. The players will cave before the owners, but they have to put up a fight first. And the owners will let them. Which will make this whole thing drag on longer than anyone wants. It's going to get ugly.

I wish I could buy that. This one will get ugly and a lockout is all but assured. The question is how long it will last.

I see where you're going, but that is a very unlikely outcome. I won't say impossible (because hey, what do I know?), but it's been said repeatedly that Ralph will sell the team when he dies so that his estate can be divvied up between his family. I think giving a 600 million dollar plus (?) chunk of your legacy to your niece would be a surprising turn of events all things considered.

They said he was a situational player when they took him ...

Regardless of how good both these team's defenses are, and they're both very good, the Super Bowl winner will be determined by who gets the best QB play on Feb 6th. The smart money is on the Packers because Rodgers has been lights out down the stretch.

Another hilarious response. Well done! Your thesis statement in your first post AND in the title is all you need is defense to win. To prove it you pointed to the Franchise QBs that got bounced in the early rounds and totally ignored the fact that every remaining team had Franchise QBs of their own. You also ignore the fact that Rodgers has been by far the hottest QB in the league over the past few weeks in addition to downplaying Big Ben's role in making Pittsburgh a consistent winner. When called out on that, you change your stance to say "QB is important too!". Then, a few posts later it's back to "D is all that matters!". Tell ya what. When you make up your mind what you believe, or when the two monkeys sumo wrestling in that noggin of yours stop arguing, let us know. Then we'll properly flame your utterly ridiculous position in this current thread. In the meantime consider this: both teams in the Super Bowl have great defenses. So if defense is all that matters, how do you pick a favorite in this game? By your logic, both teams would play to a draw ... but that's not going to happen. What will happen is the team that gets the better QB play on Feb. 6th is going to win the ring. Defense won't win this game. It'll be the play of the QB. Which will once again show how ridiculous your stance is. Cheers.

Why not? We did it with Spiller last year at 9 ... Damn you, Matty. Beat me to it

No one sees it because your rambling, incoherent rants have no logic, no base in reality and change depending on the direction the wind is blowing at that given moment. This thread is one of epic hilarity ... and you keep on pressing on. It would be admirable if it was a simple trolling. But I think you actual believe you're making sense. That just makes it kind of sad.

Do you REALLY want to make the argument that Warner was not a Franchise QB? Really? I just re-read you're post. It's even nuttier than I thought at first blush. Not only do you want to argue that Warner was not a Franchise QB, you're implying that because 10 different QBs won a ring over the past 14 years that it's easy to find a Franchise QB because everyone has one. But you do realize that 7 of those 10 QBs are Hall Of Famers: Drew Brees (he's borderline but a few more seasons at his rate he will be) Big Ben Peyton Brady Warner Elway Favre

Dude, you need to seek some relief. Maybe a girlfriend. Or a boyfriend. Something, anything to get you to calm down and start thinking rationally. Seriously, your posts in this are the ramblings of either a very bored (and tired) man or one who shouldn't own anything sharper than a butter knife. You titled your thread "Defense wins ... PERIOD" then go on to say that you never said that. Awesome. Your posts in this thread have more flip flops than a tropical resort. Damn ... it must be Friday with lines like that.

David Harris is a must sign for this team if they're serious about the 3-4. The LB corps is the weakest unit on the team by far and certainly the worst group of LBs in the entire league. Harris is a leader, tough, has tons of experience and still has good years left ahead of him. Taking him from the Jets would not be a bad thing either. Seriously ... they should be targeting him at the stroke of midnight and make him an offer he can't ignore.

1. LBs: This team has the worst LB corps in the NFL and has for the past few seasons. It's embarrassing. Poz is overrated, Davis is over the hill, Torbor was awful, Merriman is a huge question mark, Moats was the lone bright spot. 2. DE/DT: This ultimately depends on which scheme they wish to run, but a pass rushing threat is needed as is a beastly NT or DT to pair with Williams. 3. OT: Left or Right, Bell can flip to whichever side they don't address. The Line wasn't as bad as some (including me) feared last season. But a lot of that was smoke and mirrors. Outside of Wood, Andy and Bell there's a serious lack of pure talent on the line. 4. TE: This can't be stressed enough ... a play making TE is a huge need. 5. RG: Keep wood at center, find a nasty run blocking RG. 6. DB: This team does need some improvements in the secondary, but like some on here I agree that fixing the front 7 will only help the DBs we have now. Taking Peterson at 3 would be a mistake -- but it is a position of need.

QB is an absolute position of need. Yet, even if a QB is taken at #3, Fitz will still be the team's starting QB in 2011. And he should be. That gives the Bills a tremendous amount of flexibility in terms of being able to pick their spot when it comes to picking a QB. Like Joe said, there's no need to force it. The last thing the Bills should do is reach for a QB. If, after the workouts and interviews they feel Newton or Gabbert is indeed a franchise type QB then they should definitely pull the trigger. If they aren't sure, then it would be a disaster to reach for a QB just to satisfy the fans. If they reach for a QB in the first or second round, they're committed to him for at least 3 seasons. So they have to be sure. And with this front office, I'm not sure I can trust their judgment as their moves up until this point have been suspect at best and catastrophic at worst. All that said, I don't want to see the Bills use a draft pick on a QB -- even in the later rounds. I'd rather they sign a veteran backup to Fitz through Free Agency and fill out the "camp meat" slots through cheap UFAs as camp nears. The draft picks should be spent bulking up the numerous holes on the team. My order of importance are: 1. LBs (This team has the worst LB corps in the NFL and has for the past few seasons). 2. DE/DT (Depends on the scheme they wish to run, but a pass rushing threat is needed as is a beastly NT) 3. OT (Left or Right, Bell can flip to whichever side they don't address) 4. TE (This can't be stressed enough ... a play making TE is a huge need) 5. RG (Keep wood at center, find a nasty run blocking RG) 6. DB (This team does need some improvements in the secondary, but like some on here I agree that fixing the front 7 will only help the DBs we have now. Taking Peterson at 3 would be a mistake -- but it is a position of need) The need for a QB trumps all on that list -- but with Fitz capable of leading this team to respectability (though not a Super Bowl), there's no need to reach for a QB just to have one.

All excellent points. I cannot argue a single word of that. You, sir, have bested me once again.

But if they were high and using grass, they probably didn't have mothers who loved them anyway. So it's not a big loss. Think of the wonders it did for the Roswell tourism industry! These creatures, stoned or not, are heroes.

If movies have taught us anything, it's that inebriated aliens are inherently cool and funny. Look at E.T. And the new movie, , will show us once and for all how cool and funny a high alien is. Sure it may kill brain cells, but when you're a super intelligent alien being, you have more than enough to spare for our amusement. Right?

Good find! Thanks!!!