RJ (not THAT RJ)

Or that one either! *fumbling with my slide rule* I have the formula right here..

No, you need to draft more defensive linemen than your opponent. This emphasis on the score is just following the ball, and real experts never do that.

An excellent point, dog. Go Bills!

Here I was about to post that as well before I read to the end of the thread, but was afraid that I would look like some perv who makes it a point to know the names of hot women in commericals. I guess it is good at least to know I am not the ONLY perv who makes it a point to know the names of hot women in commericals.

You are right, Gerry. I blocked out 2003. Still, I think that winning the opener has more often meant good news than bad, and will cling to that even as I worry every week... It's the lot of a Bills fan!

So do I!

No worries Campy... history geeks don't fight over credit.

No one does, because American history is so Anglo-centric that most popular histories forget/ignore that the Spanish settled the North american mainland first. St. Augustine beats Jamestown by a couple of decades.

I do not want to beat any dead horses, but there are several questionable statements in such a small space. If he is not going to block, then why line him up at TE? Why not split him wide? Also, this rumor, if it is based on someone making a suggestion on a message board, is probably about as far from well thought out as I can imagine. Third, TE put on a few pounds of muscle but did not change his basic body type. Hardy would have to do much more to be a TE, so much that the very idea is silly. Besides, to go back to my original point, why not let him play a few seasons at his actual position before dreaming up new positions? Go Bills!

I thought you might find that history a bit more comforting. I like the old stuff myself. Another related thought: Of all the seasons in which the Bills have won their opener, they have only failed to have at least a .500 season once, in 2005. Indeed, of the other seasons, only in 2000 did they win the opener and end up only at .500 (By the way, before the merger the only time the Bills won their opener and failed to have a winning season was in 1967, when they beat the Jets two days before I was born as Jack Kemp came off the bench to rally them to victory. Alas, that season went into the proverbial crapper swiftly thereafter....) So an opening win is traditionally a positive sign, even if it is not a guarantee of a good season. Cheers, and Go Bills!

Some questions, my friend, one is better off not asking. May I suggest instead....

Zippy Chippy!!!!!

It is unwise because human beings are not balloons that you can "bulk up" then "slim down." Furthermore, Hardy needs to show whether he can play his present position before learning a new one. TE and WR are not the same, and it would mess with his development to force him to learn too much at once.

Never heard that rumor, though it sounds both premature and unwise...

Right... and since he picked TSW he wants it to work out, right? ;-)

And Reed made a nice catch for a first down. I know that it is fashionable on TSW to hate on ol' Josh... but the kid is a solid pro. Eventually, Hardy should supplant him, but there is no need to rush him in there.

I heard a rumor that Dean had hired Eugene Parker, and that is why he was silent for so long. Care to comment?

That was my thinking as well. Welcome back, by the way, my fellow Falls expat.

Excellent recent history. Here's a somewhat contrary thought. Since the merger in 1970, when the Bills win their opening game they have made the playoffs all but four times: 1973, 1975, 2000, and 2005. When they have lost their opening game, they have only made the playoffs twice: 1998 and 1999.

I have to admit I am nervous... but then again I am nervous every week.

Are they required to announce it, or is the player merely required to report to them? I have heard the officials make such announcements, but am not sure that is always so.

I was about to get piqued as well when I saw the standings, but then I realized that the tie breakers make sense. Serenity now!

You know, when I saw the title of the piece, that same question occurred to me. It is actually pretty close, based on my own life experiences. In the 1970s, Buffalo was totally a Sabres town, then things gradually changed. By the 1990s the Bills had become The One. That has been called into question lately. Personally, I think Buffalo remains a Bills town because of the intense focus on every Sunday. On Mondays after Bills games, you can guess whether the Bills won based on the general mood of the people on the street. That is not true of the Sabres, except in the playoffs. Of course that is debatable, which makes the topic so complex and interesting. Which is also probably why Reilly had nothing to say about it. He is too busy trying to be facile and clever to actually do any thinking. That whole column is shooting fish in a barrel. Did I mention that I dislike Rick Reilly?

No, this is not another "waaah ESPN hates Buffalo!" post. It is, rather a "Rick Reilly is an overrated hack!" post. Seriously. He mentions Charlotte, a city with no pro sports team more than 15 years old, and no major colleges, and not Buffalo? Sheesh. http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3576248

Sad, but true... Alas, no one is looking to elect Petrarch to the Assembly.