MadBuffaloDisease

And does anyone think that Verba is in playing shape?

Frick, I forgot about Locke and Boone finding that thing in the ground. What a bunch of a-holes! I think I'll reconsider and stop watching now and wait for the DVD.

After signing Everett, the Bills placed him on the PUP list. What this means (for anyone like myself who didn't exactly know) is he can rehab and go to team meetings, but not practice with the team. He can be removed at anytime before the first cutdown (from 80 to 65 players, which he won't be), but if he isn't, he won't be able to practice with the team during the first 5 weeks, and also won't count towards the final 53-man roster. Starting at week 6 he'll be able to practice with the team and the Bills will have until the end of week 9 to activate him, but after that time he either has to be placed on the 53-man roster or be put on IR. Hope this helps anyone who was confused about the rules of the PUP list and/or Everett's status. I still think he doesn't play this year, but you never know. The 6th week of the season would be October 16th and the 9th week would be November 6th. Considering there are reports that he'll be ready to go by October, he could very well impress the coaches during that 3-week practice window. But that's still over a couple months from now.

McNally must be the O-line coordinator.

Ironic it was against the Jets. Curtis Martin's career average is about 3.7 YPC, but no one is saying HE is "very average."

Can't argue with that!

Good idea. I like the series and want to know what I missed in that episode (which I think was the only episode they've skipped so far), but don't want to wait for DVD.

Reports are that he's looked great. Given his speed, hands, and confidence, even though he's a rookie there is no WAY he's not the 3rd WR at the beginning of camp. Remember the Bills started Josh back in 2002 in the slot, as a rookie, so there IS precedence.

Try as I might, I cannot find fault in the Pats' SB run last year. No (major) ref calls influenced the outcomes in any of the games, unlike the 2 previous SB runs. You see, I CAN give credit where it's due. Exactly. And the claim that "several NFC teams (and "several" to me means at least 3)" each year could have beaten the Bills in the SB as well is "coulda, woulda, shoulda."

Again, since the AFC champ never played the loser of the NFCCG, much less any other team in the NFC playoffs anytime during those 13 years, it's pure conjecture to say that ANY other team outside of the SB winner would have won the SB. There's more to prove on your side than mine and when your best argument involves trends, suppositions and hypotheticals without actual occurrences, once again it's all conjecture. And still I'd like to hear from YOU what NFC teams from 1990-1993 could have beaten the Bills in the SB. You said "several" and I want to hear them. I already spotted you the 49'ers. I've seen enough of DeOssie to know he's a blowhard. Prior to one of the Pats-Bills games a couple years ago, he made the claim that the current Pats would have beaten the Bills of the early 90's. That told me all I needed to know about DeOssie. The play in the AFC, as well as the NFL, is a FAR cry from even the early 90's. And I already said that Reilly is a fool as evidenced by insulting himself when talking about alliteration.

One successful deep throw will cure all that.

Equals winless for the month of September at least.

...and rude gestures behind people's backs.

You can make yourself sick worrying about every little thing. Resist the urge.

The Cowboys were a very young team in 1992 and 1993. So it's logical to say that they had more staying power based on youth. In 1991, the Redskins came out of nowhere to dominate everyone, in a weaker-than-usual NFC (as evidenced by the Lions making it to the NFCCG). And the Bills were a slightly missed FG away from winning the 1990 SB. Again I don't see how any team outside of the 49'ers might have had a chance to beat the Bills any of those 4 years, regardless of how the SB's may have appeared in relation to the other ones.

They COULD put an episode they were otherwise planning to skip on another night.

No one wants to lose their job. Any leaks and it's sayonara.

Actually what's scary is how Willis will look WHEN those right-sided stats come up!

It's called seeing the "previously, on Lost" recaps at the beginning of the shows. It's also pretty obvious when a character you never heard of kidnaps 2 people you HAVE heard of.

Again, I cannot and will not speak for the other AFC teams. The Bills were the most dominant AFC team/champ during that 13-year run, so I'm saying that, while what you say MAY have held true for other AFC champs, one can't say that it applies to the Bills. Again the 49'ers in 1990 lost Montana in the NFCCG so there was no WAY IN HELL they would have beaten the Bills. And the Lions fluked their way to the NFCCG in 1991, so if you think THEY had a shot, you're seriously deluded. And again the 49'ers in 1992 and 1993 MIGHT have been able to beat the Bills. But even if that were true, and that's a hard thing to prove, as it stands that is several teams short of "several." So I'd be curious to hear WHAT teams specifically could have beaten the Bills in those years. I'm guessing all of the NFC divisional round losers, right? Maybe some of the Wildcard losers as well? Maybe even every team in the NFC playoffs?

Yet still, he'll probably be back before Jonas Jennings.

I started watching it this summer. The only episode I see that they skipped is the one prior to last week's. It pissed me off, but I'm still watching.

Didn't this happen to someone else? Or is this deja vu?

Some people want to have their egos stroked by being able to say "I told you so" when they don't like someone who was acquired by their favorite team. Even though they're Buffalo Bills.

Nowhere did I say that. Yes the NFC owned the AFC during that 13-year period and the Bills lost to the best team in the NFC during their 4-year SB run. However to make the claim that a 13-year period of dominance over the AFC means that "several NFC teams" could have beaten the Bills in the SB those years is pure conjecture, and wrong actually. You know WHY the Bills were expected to beat the Giants in the SB? Because earlier that season they beat them by a FG IN Jersey. Throw in the neutral site, their dismantling of the Raiders, and there you have the -TD line. And the Bills lost by a FG because, unlike the Pats in 2001, the Bills' kicker couldn't (not that I expected him to) make a 47-yard FG. DeOssie has taken one too many hits to the head and slobbers more than he makes good points. I feel like marrying my sister (not that I have one) after watching him on NESN. But what he said is what's called a generalization. It probably applied to the majority of AFC teams, but again seeing as how the Bills beat them IN Jersey, it didn't apply to all. But maybe that was their excuse for losing that game? Maybe that applied for other years. Again as I said, the only team I think that MIGHT have had a chance to beat the Bills in the SB outside of the eventual SB winners was the 49'ers in 1992 and 1993. However seeing as how the Bills beat the 49'ers in SF during the regular season in 1992 (the "no punt" game), taken along with the Bills beating the Giants during the regular season in 1990 and the Cowboys during the 1993 regular season, that's pure conjecture if not disproven by evidence to the contrary. But if you can think of other NFC teams during that timeperiod who you think could have beaten the Bills in the SB as well (the 1990 49'ers after losing Montana in the NFCCG? The Lions in 1991?), let me hear it.