RJ (not THAT RJ)

Is this proof that Nate reads the Wall while on the sidelines?

Amen to that.... and by the way, has everyone seen how the D has managed to corrall Emmitt after the fast start? I am not watching, so I imagine the worsening weather has something to do with it, but on the whole I like watching the D get stronger as the game wears on. Go Bills!

*clinking beer steins* Right back atcha, Bills Brother!

OK, I don't make a habit of looking into people's souls, nor do I know any of your history with each other, so I just went by what I read. I could be wrong. On the whole, I thought your initial post was sensible; have fun, watch the games, see what happens. Maybe I misread that as well, though. My feeling is that there is no great accomplishment in being "realistic" about a kid's game. It's fun to watch and exciting. It feels great to see the Bills win, it sucks to see them lose. All the other stevestojan (sorry, I just wanted to see if the filter was still on) seems to me to be creating reasons to be unhappy and stressed. The real world is stressful enough. Let the games be games. (And no, I do not need any lectures from anyone on the board on how football is a business. I know that too... but I stand by my point.) May we all be happy at least 10 Sundays this season.... Go Bills!

Steve, I thought he was praising you for being even-handed, not attacking you. Switch to decaf man. P.S. Todd collins did not go 3-13. He went 6-10 with help from AVP.

It was very close... high enough to go almost over the top of the left upright, curving away at the end. As good as a mile, as they say... but not an embarrassment.

Golly guys, I know you don't like Lindell, but what exactly is he supposed to say? "I didn't miss that kick, it was blocked by God?" or "I did miss it on purpose, nyah nyah nyah." or "Yes, yes *sob* I suck.... That's why I need a holder..." or "Please forgive me, Bills Nation"? I'm not attacking any of you here, guys, but I do think it is a reach to criticize Lindell for saying the only thing that he could legitimately be expected to say. The truth is virtually everything that is ever said in any interview relating to sports is BS. How can it be otherwise? The kick was missed; he didn't want to miss it; he needs to make more kicks if he wants to keep his job. Does anyone think he doesn't know that? All these interview shows are built on the incessant repetition of the same comments every week, altered slightly to adjust to the game results. I love sports, but let's be honest. It is the toy department of life, in which the majority of the participants (players and coaches) have an educational level that makes it hard for them to carry on deep philosophical conversations in front of a TV camera. Not that there is anything wrong with that, of course--no one is paying them for the depth of their insights. Lindell gets paid for the depth of his kickoffs.

Good point. Also, according to today's D and C, Bledsoe gave MW a pep talk ("Come on, big boy, we need you.") which kept Williams in the game. Sounds like a leader to me....

Very sensible post. I like your spirit... and choose to join you in optimism. After all, why not hope? Go Bills!

Very sensible post. I like your spirit... and choose to join you in optimism. After all, why not hope? Go Bills!

Man, I do not know whether to laugh or cry... Any one of the following things goes the other way... Lindell misses FG by less than a foot Reese is tackled on the 3 after his INT Three consecutive 4th down completions! Any stat boys here to discuss that probability? What is this, Madden 2003? Well, not that it matters anyway. Some good things today, but in the end the D could not step up and the O moved the ball but could not hold onto it. Still 15 more games to go.... My cardiologist is delighted.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Glad to know someone is paying attention. You should neither run nor pass all the time on third and short. This time they threw, it did not work. People should chill. Go Bills!

Not to distract from the Lindell Lynch mob... but who had Edwards and Prioleau in the "first sack" pool?

Looks like MM is already ahead of Greggo....

80 yards?!!?

I have two answers. One is that I think the term "dynasty" is over-used and incorrectly-used in sports. A dynasty suggests several "generations," so a true dynasty would be a team that was so good for so long that it could even survive a change in key players and remain on top. The Yankees, Canadiens, and Celtics are thus the ultimate dynasties, with championships stretching over decades with different casts of characters. The Braves actually can make a claim to this type of dynasty, when you consider how different the 2004 team is from the 1991 team. My more restrictive definition creates an interesting dynamic, because some very good teams that won multiple champiionships in a relatively short period but then faded (like say the Steelers of 1974-1980, who won 4 titles in 6 years with pretty much the same players, but fell back into the pack once those players like Bradshaw, Harris, Greene and co. aged) are actually less of a dynasty than say the Raiders of 1967-1983, who "only" won three championships in that period, but remained an elite team despite substantial changes in coaching and personnell over the entire 17 seasons, reaching conference champtionships 12 times over that period. The Dolphins (shudder) also are more of a dynasty, since they remained a competitor for championships from 1971 to 1985 despite some major personnel turnover. That claim would carry more weight, though, if they had one a championship after Super Bowl VIII. The Cowboys are a dynasty, having been a dominant team for most of the years between 1966 and 1966, despite a couple of down years. Teams like the Packers are similar, but since the "drought" was much longer, their claim (under my definition) could be questioned. The 49ers are under this definition probably a dynasty, since they did have major changes between 1981 and 1994, but the Bills of 1988-1994, as much as it pains me to say it, are not, not just because they failed to win titles, but because they remained much the same team through the entire period. A great team, certainly, but not a dynasty according to my anti-inflationary use of the term. Thus my initial answer is to say the Pats are not a dynasty, at least not yet. That, however, is not a smack at the Pats, because as you see, I do not think there really are many true dynasties anyway. Despite the pain I feel when thinking about it, though, the current Pats should be given their props as one of the finest teams in recent NFL history for they way they have come together. I would say that is true even if they do not go to the Bowl this year. Flame away, but they are no fluke. They have had good fortune, yes, but every championship requires some of that. That is why they are so hard to come by. Go Bills!

It's gawtah be the Sawks..... Hurrah!

Can I get an AMEN!!! Right on!

Not to get in the way of your personal attack on Todd... but did you read my post? I did offer an assessment of Sullivan's half-truths. I would not put words in Todd's mouth (with those teeth, there is probably not enough room ), but I would guess he and I are on the same page. End of self-advertisement. Go Bills!

Happy to oblige, Bills Brother.

Bill, Since you sound like you really want a response to your questions, I will give you one that addresses at least part of the problem I have with Sullivan. Virtually every statement he makes is based solely on hindsight. Now, there is certainly nothing wrong with that; we all make such judgments. Where it becomes a problem is when one dresses up an argument based on hindsight by pretending that the alternative solution was obvious at the time when that is simply not so. To give four examples: 1. On TD's reputation: To hear Sullivan say it, with TD's 30-50 overall record the past five years, even hiring him to begin with was a mistake. That statement completely ignores the reality of late 2000, when the Bills were in disarray and needed an experienced football mind. Every single knowledgable football person, including Jerry Sullivan, thought that TD was the right guy for the job. In fact, when more than a week went by after the end of the season without an announcement that TD had been hired, Larry Felser wrote a column basically saying that if Ralph did not hire him immediately, it was proof that the Bills were DOOOOMED. 2. On the Mike Williams vs. Bryany McKinnie pick: Sullivan acts as though McKinnie was clearly and always the obvious better choice. That was not true at the time--intelligent football people disagreed then--and it is still not clear. When you add to this the fact that McK went on to hold out for 11 weeks, thereby shitcanning his entire rookie season, we should all remember that Big Mike was looking like a good choice. Now things look different, but that does not mean that everything is decided. Ask me at the end of this season what I think of Mike williams, and I think it will be possible to make a definitive statement. 3. On the OL. This is related to the point above and to the Steinbach/McGahee question. It is disappointing to see the state of our OL last year, even if I am optimistic about the future. But to say TD has done nothing for the OL is incorrect. He drafted a tackle with a first-round pick, he acquired a center through free agency, he drafted several other linemen in the rounds where most NFL linemen are found. 4. On hiring Gregg Williams. This has been said already, but bears repeating: Marvin Lewis WAS the Bills' first choice and he spurned the offer. That was known then, and to pretend that it was not true is at best disingenuous. John Fox, as it turns out, would have been the better choice. But at the time no one could have predicted it. No one. I repeat, no one. Anyone who says today that he or she knew in February 2001 which of the two very successful defensive coordinators was going to be the better NFL coach is lying. There may have been different opinions, but that's all they were. I could go on, but if I did you might all think that I was merely channeling Barry Brady. (Ooops, I mean Fake-Fat Sunny... ) My overall point is that it is perfectly fine to say that the Bills have not done as well as we would have liked under TD so far. It is, however, false to assume that this is due to choices he made that were obviously wrong at the time is incorrect. I have posted this thought before on the board, but since no one read it then (I know, waaaaaaa, another person complaining about being ignored) I will repeat it: Selecting players and building a team in any sport is a product of both skill and luck. Jimmy Johnson looked like a genius when he had Aikman (whom he drafted, but also showed lack of faith in when he drafted Steve Walsh the same year), E. Smith, and Ervin; the same Jimmy Johnson looked rather less genius-like when he had Huard, L. Smith, and Gadsen. Bill Parcells has had great success, but his last Super Bowl appearance was in January 1997. Success is not automatic. By all means, judge TD by how well the Bills do, but let's not pretend that he was always wrong and ignored obvious alternatives. As my German friends say: Man ist immer nacher klüger. (One is always smarter afterwards). But hindsight is cheap compared with the challenge of making decisions for which one is responsible. Go Bills!

This is a perfectly sensible concern in the abstract, but I have to ask: has anyone seen any evidence up to now that TD has had any trouble signing FAs he wanted to sign? I can think of no concrete examples of anyone getting away. Not to say that TD should not try to have good relations with players, but I would not get too worked up over a theoretical concern. Players, coaches, and agents generally know the score, and I would not think that TD's treatment of players is outside of the norm for current NFL executives. On another note, has anyone here commented on the fact that Drew Henson is #3 on the Cowgirls depth chart? He could not beat out a senior citizen and a nobody, even after Carter was cut. I guess we can get over that one... Go Bills!

Frez... he is a terrible back-up. He is a clubhouse lawyer who by his own admission has no interest in tutoring anyone else. No one will want him; he needs to retire and get down to spending the money he managed to steal from SD. Put down the crack pipe and back away slowly.....

This thread is making me so happy... finally a direct confrontation with the "Steinbach was an obvious pick" theory, which belongs on a grassy knoll somewhere. TD still has to show that his moves will produce a winner, but anyone who thinks that the alternatives were obvious has not been thinking hard enough about how complicated a balance of skill and luck is necessary to build a winner. TD has not had much luck yet with certain picks panning out, and he needs some. That, however, does not necessarily mean that his choices were not sensible when he made them. This year will tell us a lot. Go Bills!

I really really wish that all the people on this board who pretend to be film-studying O-Line experts would compare what TD has done in searching for O-Line help (some in the draft, some through trades, some through FA, some through waiver pick-ups) to how other teams, good and bad, have done it. What you would see is that there is no magic formula, nor is there any proof that TD has "ignored" the O-Line. What one will see is that several moves have not panned out. It happens. Even to Bill Parcells, Jimmy Johnson, Bill Belichek, etc. etc. Criticize the record, but let's get off the "TD's ego is the problem" stevestojan. That is as idiotic as the occasional spate of "TD is the Manchurian Candidate sent to dismantle the Bills so they move to LA" posts.