RJ (not THAT RJ)

A very sensible response, but deserves special props for being perhaps the first reference to Voltaire in TSW history. Felicitations! Et salut!

As usual, the wailing and gnashing of teeth about this or that rookie proves unnecessary, as they end up on the PS. I love our annual traditions here at TSW.

I agree. It is an argument because Jerry Sullivan and several posters on this board have tried to spin this into a "bean counters run the Bills" argument, and the evidence is shaky at best.

Kelly, I am confused. He says Overdorf was not behind the trade. Is that really not an answer, or just not the answer you hoped for?

Fair enough... but there have been no further articles on the issue on the AP either.

Indeed, and it is a shame, since his implication has allowed people from Jerry Sullivan to KTFABD to build entire thought castles on it, even in the face of intriguing contradictory evidence.

I have asked this question, as have others in this thread, and yet no one in a position to answer it seems to want to.

Looking beyond that cascade of unnecessary insults, this bolded statement is the basis of my question. What exactly have we learned here?

I am neutral in the identity struggle between jw and NGU, since I am not sure what a resolution would actually look like in a public forum. At the same time, though, I fear that the debate over NGU's intemperate (and surely false) assertion that JW has and has never had inside information is overshadowing the more interesting question, to my mind. That question is: if jw meant to imply that Overdorf "handling" the Evans trade was somehow conclusive proof that the bean counters were in charge (which he has implied heavily but danced around in every subsequent post), how does that implication square with either the fact that Baltimore's "bean counter" handled the trade from their end too, or NGU's assertion that Overdorf never made personnel decisions? As much as I respect jw, and as much as I am willing to believe that the Bills' front office is far from perfect, I am distressed by the cavalier way that jw implied that Overdorf's actions were proof of something big and awful—an assertion that many posters here have chosen to run with to shore up their own pre-existing attitudes—without responding to evidence that they might not mean much of anything at all. P.S. And although I am sure someone will say "well, it has started a discussion," and I like discussion as much as the next guy, part of the purpose of reporting is to help resolve discussions through the sifting of evidence.

Time... or something else.

It does if the replacements are better players.

A couple of recent family night games have sold out, but the general answer is not very often. Anywhere.

Well, Sol W calls them the Beeels

Before the recent invention of Kids' Night, every Bills home preseason game has been blacked out, with a few minor exceptions (perhaps the first one was on TV in 1973?). There is nothing to get all worked up about, people. Really.

Amen brother, alas.

Amazing. Not that somebody posted this, of course, but that it took all the way to page 3. Every silver lining has a cloud for some people.

Sensible historians weigh the evidence to make conclusions about the past, and are very humble when it comes to attempting predictions, precisely because they appreciate the power of contingency in history.

Gritty Area Bitter Cold, Bitter Fans Love Despair, Self-Loathing

Dear Bill Polian, Up Yours! Signed, Jim Sorgi

Ask Takeo Spikes.

Yay! more self-loathing masquerading as "realism!"

So, do the articles on today's TBD front page from the News and D&C, which say that Fred is still the starter, make these 12 pages (not to mention Jerry Sullivan's column) moot? I need to know, because I have all this tar bubbling, and these torches won't light themselves....

But then the defenders knocked each other down, and Lee was able to streak to the trough.

Jim Plunkett.

Excellent historical perspective!