KurtGodel77

That article was unfair, but funny even so.

Your ability to look down your nose at those who disagree doesn't mean you're intellectually superior. It just means you're arrogant. Next time, try giving logical reasons for your disagreement. Assuming you're up to the task, that is.

Backwards? It seems to me that liberals are often in favor of moving backwards on issues. Race Liberals complain that black people are victims of poverty, discrimination, and lack of opportunity. They then prevent blacks from having educational opportunity by working to deny poor black parents the right to decide what schools their children should be sent to. They also oppose strong anti-crime measures, creating dangerous neighborhoods that black people are stuck living in. Two parent black families, at least in poor neighborhoods, were attacked by Democrats as a form of welfare fraud. Speaking of welfare, Democrats were the ones who came up with the idea of paying people more to do nothing than to work in low-wage jobs. Minorities were disproportinately impacted by this attack on the work ethic, because minorities had historically been the victims of institutionalized discrimination. The problem of inner city drug addition is largely due to liberal influence: ideas about recreational narcotics worked their way from '60s hippie campuses to the inner city. The economy Liberals seem blissfully ignorant that you have to create wealth before you can distribute it. They often favor needless regulations, a parasitic legal system, or other attacks on the economy. Liberals seem to favor massive immigration from Third World countries; creating a situation where the U.S. is importing people while exporting jobs. Hardest-hit by this betrayal of the American worker are those who have the least skills and fewest opportunities. Mass murder Liberals have a long and rich tradition of doing absolutely nothing about mass murder, so long as the perpetrators are communits. The first act of FDR's foreign policy was to recognize the Soviet Union. This, while the Soviets were starving 7 million innocent Ukrainians to death. FDR remained a loyal ally of the Soviet Union throughout his administration. Lest FDR be considered the exception rather than the rule, consider the visciousness with which Democrats attacked any hard-line anti-communist. The Soviets murdered 7 million people in the post-Stalin era. If the Democrats attack the enemies of the Soviet Union, while also favoring appeasement, it seems to me they should feel a deep sense of shame for the mass murders their actions helped perpetrate. There are other problems with the liberal movement, but that's enough to make my point.

I agree they might give Reed another year, but until Reed or someone else from that draft steps up, you have to say it was TD's worst draft in Buffalo so far.

When I read Lawyer's comments, I concluded he was rooting FOR the Steelers and against the Pats. He says that the Steelers "didn't impress" him. He knows that comment is going on the Steelers' locker room wall this week as motivation against the Patriots. He said that the Patriots are underpaid, and that they should be thinking about taking care of their families. Maybe he's hoping that comment will cause some of the Patriots' players to start demanding more cash in contract negotiations, thereby hurting that franchise. Or maybe he's not as calculating as I'm giving him credit for.

I disagree. The Bills' best option would be to cut Bledsoe and sign Warner. Warner could start; and if he played as well for us as he did the Giants, that would be a solid improvement at the QB position. If Warner faltered, he'd accept the backup role with the same grace and team-first approach that he had when he was benched in NY and St. Louis.

I hear what you're saying. But I'd rather have a WR like someone on the Patriots: a guy who doesn't have the baggage of a Moss, and who doesn't drop passes like a Moulds. If the guy doesn't have Moss-like talent that's okay, because we have Evans as our difference-maker.

Your criticism of Moulds is well-taken. Moulds is our Ruben Brown: a former Butler first round pick who makes the Pro Bowl based on his name rather than accomplishments on the field. Having said that, I don't agree with the idea of bringing in Moss to replace Moulds, for the reasons other posters have mentioned. We need to go in a third direction for our possession WR next year.

Ty Law would make our defense better, but we don't have the salary cap space to sign him.

You're half right: he won't win you the game.

Sounds convincing, and maybe there's some truth in it. But having lived in the South for several years, I know the biggest problem is the drivers not adapting themselves to the snow. The few who are brave enough to deal with the snow go too fast, take turns too quickly, and don't leave enough space between themselves and the vehicle in front. That, more than bad road conditions, is why they wind up in ditches.

It seemed that for every time Moulds bailed Bledsoe out by catching a badly thrown ball, there were at least ten times that he dropped a pass he should have caught. How can a team drive the length of the field with receivers who drop passes and can't get open deep?

Clearly Mularkey is a better coach than Martz. But Warner got a QB rating ten points higher than Bledsoe. With Warner under center, the Giants went 5-3. After he got benched, they went 1-7 to finish 6-10. So I'd say Warner's talent and skilled play were masking other weaknesses that team had. If Warner can be on pace for a 10-6 record with the Giants, imagine what he'd do in Buffalo!

Why wouldn't a team double cover a guy who gets thrown to a lot? I seem to remember Bobby Shaw getting his share of double coverage last year, and now he's no longer with the team.

It's not about the stats. It's about what I've seen on the field. My idea of a possession receiver is a guy who goes across the middle, makes the catch, and gets hit by two guys immediately following the catch. That's what I saw elite #1 WRs like Jerry Rice and Michael Irvin do when they were in their prime, and that's what I haven't seen Moulds do in some time. It's almost like they're using Moulds as a TE: he gets a ton of passes thrown his way, but they're all relatively short. The difference between Moulds and a pass-catching TE is that the latter would be expected to have good hands.

Moulds isn't the player you're making him out to be. He has too many drops. One thing you can say about the Patriots' receivers is they don't drop passes. That's why they were able to go on so many clock-killing drives against Indy. Can Moulds be part of the solution? I don't see how. If you want to go on a 15 play drive, you can't have receivers drop passes the way he does. If you want to score in just a few plays, you need to have a LOT higher a yards per catch average than Moulds does. Moulds is just good enough to get you beat.

If it's his weapons, we should sign Bruce.

I see what you're saying, but Tom Brady is also a pocket passer without mobility, and he's done okay. If Warner could succeed on a team without an offensive line, imagine what he could do if he got the decent to good pass protection the Bills offense now has.

Moulds was 7th in the league in terms of passes thrown to. He was in the perfect situation to get a ton of yards: a run oriented team to take the pressure off the pass, and a ton of passes getting thrown his way to give him the lion's share of what passing yards there were. Only getting 1000 yards in that kind of situation isn't enough to justify $8.7 million a year.

The Giants had a lot less talent on offense than we did, yet Warner's QB rating for 2004 was ten points higher than Bledsoe's for the same year.

Last year, I heard a lot of people saying that Travis was our #1 back and that McGahee could never compare to him.

Drew Bledsoe, 2004: 76.6 passer rating Kurt Warner, 2004: 86.5 passer rating (in a much worse situation!) Eric Moulds, 2004: 1043 yards receiving, 11.9 yards/reception Isaac Bruce, 2004: 1292 yards receiving, 14.5 yards/reception

Yes way! We could also bring in Kurt Warner to replace an inept Drew Bledsoe while Losman gets more time to learn. Warner to Bruce sounds pretty good to me; especially with the pass protection our improved line can give him.

Why not? Moulds drops far too many passes, and the salary cap space he's hogging could be better used to improve the lines. Besides that, it would be cool to once again chant Bruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuce!!

This from ESPN: "That kid (Kevin) Curtis of the Rams is going to be a heck of a receiver in that system. You wrote about him last week and you were either lucky or have a little better eye than I ever give you credit for. He's got great speed, gets out of his breaks, and can add yards after the catch. I read where (coach Mike) Martz said he thinks Curtis is ready to be a starter next season. I wonder what that means for Isaac Bruce, who's been dinged up more at this point in his career and has probably lost a step. I haven't looked at Bruce's cap number for next year, but I'm betting it's pretty big. And if Martz is going to play Curtis, we might see something happen with Bruce in the offseason." So if the Rams cut Bruce to make way for Curtis, should we cut Moulds to make way for Bruce?